• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The Role of the Court of Appeal

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

1. Court of Appeal must follow House of Loads (otherwise known as Supreme Courts) decision which means that the Court of Appeal is bound by the decisions of the House of Lords. This is indicated through the UK Hierarchy being fixed; the Court of Appeal is bound by all the courts above it and binds the courts below it. Court of Appeal can distinguish a case means to contrast the facts of the case before the court from the facts of a case of precedent where there is an apparent similarity which is limited. An example if this would be Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merritt where both involve a wife making a claim against their husband for a breach in a contract. 2. Court of Appeal is not bound by its own divisions. This is because the Court of Appeal (Criminal) is only persuaded by the Court of Appeal (Civil) and it has the choice whether to follow their decision. There is more flexibility on a person?s liability as the Court feels it cannot send someone to prison if it seen wrong as the person may not have generally realised what mistake they made. ...read more.

Middle

This is where a statute or a rule having statutory effect which would have affected the decision was not brought to the attention of the earlier court, defined as by literally, by carelessness or mistake. Per incuriam would be shown in the case of Williams v Fawcett as it was decided in ignorance of a statute. In the House of Lords, if a previous decision conflicts with the decision the House of Lord?s decision must be followed this is if there are two conflicting decisions they can choose between them as in Starmark Enterprises v CPL Enterprises (2001). The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the House of Lords, and by its own earlier decisions but there are exceptions, and its decisions are binding on all inferior courts. Exceptions to the principle that it is bound by its own earlier decisions arise where such a decisions conflicts with a later decision of the House of Lords or where the earlier decision was given per incuriam (i.e, a relevant statute or case was overlooked). ...read more.

Conclusion

The advantage to the Court of Appeal would be that it improves the flexibility of the doctrine of precedent and also allows justice more quickly. The disadvantages of the Court of Appeal would be that there could be a reluctance to use the power similar to the House of Lords as they are in the middle of the Hierarchy and if they used the power that is similar to the HL this will cause a reduce in certainty and cause uncertainty which will affect the lower courts as they will not be aware on which precedent to follow. It is notice to undermine the power and role of the House of Lords as a well known judge, Lord Denning, rebels against the HL decisions which undermined their power as it is not good enough for him to follow correctly without causing uncertainty, inconsistency. It could cause the system of precedent to break down; and could cause increased appeals to the Supreme Court. Brakuje mi ciebie ? i miss you as in if you have broken with someone Ciekawy ? interesting ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. A rule as to precedent (which any court lays down for itself) is not ...

    The judge therefore has a lot of discretion in his decision making. As mentioned above, courts follow the past decisions on cases with same or similar facts. However, whether the case is sufficiently similar to be applicable is a matter of interpretation.

  2. Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice

    Mandatory minimums are the most costly and least effective way to cut down on the use of drugs (Greider 12). While mandatory sentencing may seem like the best way at first, in the long run money would be better spent on standard sentencing and treatment programs.

  1. Describe how civil disputes can be resolved without going to court (this does not ...

    This person is completely neutral and is called the mediator. The mediator will consult with both the parties privately at a place and time agreed by everyone. He/she will take down all key points of both arguments and will attempt to seek 'common ground' between parties which the mediator will discuss conclusively with them together and on a agreed date.

  2. As the juvenile courts converge procedurally and substantively with the adult criminal courts, does ...

    These same areas or zones are plagued by teenage pregnancy, high high-school dropout rates, mental illness and large amounts of substandard housing, along with the characteristic high concentrations of African American and immigrant populations with poor economic and social status.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work