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

With reference to any appropriate examples, consider to what extent judges are bound to follow previous precedent.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

B) With reference to any appropriate examples, consider to what extent judges are bound to follow previous precedent (20) The lower courts are bound by the House of Lords so they have to apply their rules as if they were applying a statute. It was decided after the case 'London street tramways v London county council (1898)' that the House of Lords would be bound by its own previous decisions. This was a case during the nineteenth century, during the Victorian times when it was important to be consistent and certain. However during the twentieth century both society and the law developed and some decisions made in previous cases were now unsuitable, so the House of Lords made a Practice Statement in 1966. As a result of the Practice Statement 1966 the House of Lords does not always need to follow its own past decisions and can depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so. ...read more.

Middle

because the House of Lords thought the 'Congreve' case was wrong and would produce startling and unacceptable consequences if it was followed. 'Pepper v Hart (1993)' overruled 'Beswick v Beswick (1968)' on the use of Hansard as an extrinsic aid to statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeal is usually bound by its own previous decisions and always bound by those of the House of Lords. However there are some exceptions to this rule shown in 'Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co (1944)'. Where there were conflicting decisions in past cases then the court of appeal can choose which one to follow or reject. If a House of Lords decision overrules a court of appeal decision then they must follow the House of Lords decision. Where a Court of appeal decision was made per incurium then the decision made in error can be overruled. ...read more.

Conclusion

the judge held that there were sufficient differences from an earlier case of 'Balfour v Balfour (1919)' so he did not have to follow that decision. Overruling in judicial precedent is where a court states that a precedent is wrong and creates a different legal rule in its place. The earlier precedent is said to be overruled. Reversing is when a higher court overturns the decision of a lower court on appeal. In 'Re Pinochet (1999)' the House of Lords reversed a previous decision for the first time. In conclusion, the House of Lords is bound by its previous decisions. However as a result of the Practice Statement in 1966, the House of Lords has some flexibility and can depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so. The Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own decisions but there are some exceptions as shown in 'Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co (1944)'. The lower courts do not have that much power as they can only avoid following precedent by distinguishing, overruling and reversing. ...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. POLICE POWERS

    - in the following circumstances: Anyone actually committing or whom he or she reasonably suspects to be committing an arrestable offence. Where an arrestable offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty or whom he or she reasonably suspects to be guilty of the offence.

  2. Notes on Sentencing in British courts

    o For 1st drink driving min is 12 months disqualification. 3yrs 2nd time. o Courts can use this for anyone who uses a vehicle to commit crime. Not often. 3.7 Other Powers Available to the Courts o Court have other powers to compensate victim or make sure offender doesn't benefit.

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

    bound to apply does not in any sense produce a moral or just solution. Yet, while reasonable, that concern might just be superfluous. The reality is, the application of precedent is not a mechanical affair but a dynamic process which involves a great deal of interpretation, choice and style.

  2. Penal Studies for Professional Practice

    Therefore, it is likely that they will be criminally unsophisticated in terms of previous convictions and hence would not have experienced institutionalisation. Also, women's offences, being considered less serious than men's attract short custodial sentences of less that one year (Prison Reform Trust 2000, p13).

  1. Judicial Precedent

    The result for the first case would have been the same, the second, more recent case would also have reached the same outcome as although the practice statement had been in action for many years, it is only for the use of the House Of Lords.

  2. Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice

    When 1 million dollars was spent on the standard sentencing it would reduce cocaine consumption by 27 kilograms. If 1 million dollars were spent on treatment for heavy drug users it would help to reduce cocaine consumption by 100 kilograms (Caulkins).

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