The Role of Ratio Decidendi in Judicial Precedent.

Original precedent is a point of law where a new case that hasn’t been decided on in the past. In these cases the judge would look at cases that appear closest, the judge would use the case to reason by analogy. A case where the judge had to reason by analogy was in 1995, the case was Hunter and others V Canary Wharf Ltd. The case was about a 250m high tower that Hunter said caused interference with television reception. A decision needed to be made as to whether the tower did cause problems, but because this was an unusual case the judge didn’t have a directly related ratio decidendi to refer to and so he found a case with a similarity. The judge found a case from 1611 and came to the judgment that interference with television broadcasts was analogous to blocking a view out of a window. He also said that television wasn’t a necessity and so ruled that Canary Wharf Ltd weren’t liable.

Binding precedent is where a judge is forced to follow a decision even if he/she doesn’t agree with it. However, the case must be adequately similar and the previous case should have been heard in a court either on the same level or higher.

If there is a case similar to another but it has been heard in a lower court the judge doesn’t have to use it, although the judge can be persuaded to, hence persuasive precedent. Judges can be persuaded to follow precedence when;

• The original decision was made in a lower court e.g. R v R in 1991
• Decision were made by the judicial committee of the Privy Council
• Statements were made in an obiter dicta
• There has been a dissenting judgement

 The obiter dicta is another principle of law. Basically it is just the other things said by the judge. Sometimes it is difficult separating the ratio decidendi from the obiter dicta as they are written in continuous prose. Also it is sometimes hard to make a judgment because there are more than one ratio decidendi.

        Overall I think the role of ratio decidendi in judicial precedent is a significant one. It helps guide judges to give consistent judgments; it also helps prevent appeals for injustice. The ratio decidendi offers direction if a judge doesn’t want to exactly follow the decision from a previous case.