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

law of uk

Extracts from this document...


Judicial Precedent A) Explain what is meant by the doctrine of precedent. (11) B) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent? (14) A) The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the common law system of rights and duties. The courts are bound (within limits) by prior decisions of superior courts. One level includes stare decisis, this means to stand by what has been previously decided in a previous case and that this decision should be kept to and that you should in no way try to unsettle the established. This can benefit the system of common law because it supports the idea of fairness and it therefore provides certainty in the law and also consistency in the law. Another aspect of stare decisis that concerns the court hierarchy is that decisions that are made in the higher court must be followed by the lower courts and the same decisions must be followed at all time. This leads me on to my next point about the court hierarchy. Under stare decisis the courts must follow the judgments that were made by their superior courts. In the civil system, this is as follows. The main court is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The decisions that are made here bind all of the lower courts to it. For example a decision that was made in the ECJ must be followed in the House of Lords (HOL.) ...read more.


The practise statement was first used in the case between Conway vs. Rimmer in 1968. The first major case that the practise statement was used on was the Harrington vs. British Railways case in 1972. The use of the practise statement changed during the 1980's and 1990's because of an increasing willingness to use the practise statement. B) There are a great deal of advantages and disadvantages to the doctrine of precedent. For the advantages, there is now certainty thanks to the practise statement, this stated that when there is a decision made about a case, and then a similar case should follow the same decision that was made in the previous case. There is also now consistency and fairness thanks to the doctrine of precedent because there is the fact that the results of the case or the outcome of the case should be the same for everybody. This was shown in the cases Donoghne vs. Stevenson and Daniels vs. White. The decision that was made in the Donoghne vs. Stevenson case was again followed and made in the Daniels vs. White case, it was fair to make the decision based on this case because they are too similar cases and the outcome should be the same and that is when the decision is consistent, no matter what the case is, just so long as the details are similar. There is now a flexibility that is seen throughout the court system, for example the practise statement now shows that the ...read more.


There is also a disadvantage of clarity and reform, could the decisions be changed from a previous date because the law may have changed and to use the same decision for a case nowadays that was used around 50 years ago would be wrong because obviously the laws have changed since back then. The question that has arisen time and time again is; should the COA be bound by its past decisions or should it be able to change its decisions to suite the particular case that is going on? The answer that should come from this is that the COA should be bound like all other courts and stick to past decisions that have been made, but once again the problem with this is that not every case is the same and can not all follow the same structure as there are different points to consider in ever case that comes forward to a court. Finally the other disadvantage that has arisen is that is the decision that is being made in the best interests of the public, as there could be a judgment that upsets the public and one that they could be strongly opposed to, does the fact that there could be trouble from a decision that has been made make it acceptable to change the judgment of a court or should all courts follow the decisions that it is bound by, no matter what the public opinion may be. ?? ?? ?? ?? Andrew Penman 12C ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law 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 GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial precedent.

    3 star(s)

    This does not allow the Court of Appeal to ignore decisions of the House of Lords. ( There is also the possibility that the Court of appeal can ignore a previous decision of its own which is inconsistent with European Community law or with a later decision of the European Court of Justice.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    * Medical examinations Limitations on the concept of consent The above situations of applied consent would not occur in special situations. These situations include: - 1. The age of the victim R v Burrell & Harmer (1967) - Approached by two 13 year old boys who signed consent forms for tattoos.

  1. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    Yet Islam did accept Christ as a prophet, and the western rhetoric of proximity contained several tropes to acknowledge that the Qur'an mixed truth with untruth, honey with poison. Perhaps more than anything else, this recognition of the Qur'an's "sweetness," its "truth" about Christ, positioned Islam in what Dollimore would

  2. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    that the juror knows him personally), but the former right of "peremptory challenge" was abolished in 1988. Challenge for cause is very limited, because (unlike in the USA) no questioning of jurors to establish a cause is normally allowed, and only the most obvious bias is likely to be detected.

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    Protest The protest is the formal notary certificate attesting the dishonor of the bill, and based upon the noting which has been effected on the dishonor of the bill. After the noting has been made within the specified or reasonable time, the formal protest may be drawn up by the

  2. Common Law vs. Political Law vs. Scientific LawAmericans are no longer aware that there ...

    among the Anglo-Saxons before the invasion of England by the Norman William the Conqueror. The Magna Carta was a concession by the Norman King to honor and respect the common law of the Anglo-Saxons. Eventually, Henry II establishes common law judges of the King's Bench at Westminster.

  1. Discuss the Importance of the Doctrine of Supremacy

    This can only be achieved by ensuring that, in the areas where the member States have agreed to act as a Community, they limit their own national power to act. A significant statement relating to the supremacy of EC law arose from the decision in the case of, Costa v.

  2. The case R.V Machekequonabe, a pagan Indian prisoner.

    justified by the fact that others in his camp also believed and were in fear of a wendigo in the area, as suggested by the setting out of armed guards. Upon seeing the victim in the distance, Machekequonabe shouted out challenges three times, in an attempt to identify the target,

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