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

To what extent do the doctrines of precedent curb judicial creativity?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent do the doctrines of precedent Curb judicial creativity? I have been asked to discuss the extent, if any; whether the doctrine of president curbs judicial creativity. Do judges make law; or does it stem from judicial precedent? Judicial precedent is the process whereby... What is the doctrine of judicial precedent? Must judges in all circumstances follow legal precedent...? The doctrine of judicial precedent is that, to make common law fair, judges in their rulings should follow past decisions made by other judges, in similar cases. This is based on the maxim 'stare decisis et non quieta movere' which means 'stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established'. This creates fairness and provides certainty in the law. Judicial precedent is known as 'the tool of common law'. It is one of common law's main sources. Although judicial precedent is known as 'judge made law', judges follow judicial precedent to avoid making new law. If judges frequently made law instead of enforcing it, we would not have a democracy in Britain. Judges want to protect democracy and them making law could lead to a dictatorship. 'Ratio decidendi' can be questioned on when... Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason for the decision." It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. ...read more.


An example of 'stare decisis' is in the following case: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) The decomposing snail in the ginger beer case. The HoL held that a manufacture owed duty of care to the consumer that products are safe. "Products" have since been held by later courts to include not only foods and drink but also: underpants; motor cars, hair dye, lifts; and chemicals. An example of 'Rator Decendi' is in the following case: R V Dudley & Stevenson's 1884 The two shipwrecked defendants killed and ate the cabin boy. They were convicted of murder. The court gave three reasons for refusing a defence of necessity: * if necessity is not available on a charge of theft of food because of starvation, it cannot be available to a charge of murder * the Christian aspect of giving up one's own life to save another's rather than taking another's life to save one's own * impossibility of choosing between the value of one person's life and another's. An example of 'Orbiter' is in the following case: R V Howe (1987) The HoL commented that a defence should not be available on a charge of attempted murder. Although this statement was 'orbiter', it was following by the CA (and then the HoL) in R v Gotts (1992) when a son attempted to kill his mother under duress from his father. ...read more.


An example of how they control the operation of case law with reference to Parliament, is the 1966 Practice Direction announcing that the House of Lords would no longer be bound by its prior decisions, which henceforth made case law more flexible and thereby gave more power to judges, this decision was made on the court's own authority, without needed permission from Parliament. A case where the House of Lords explained its approach to judicial law-making was C (A Minor) v DPP (1995), which questions children's liability for crime. The law defence 'doli incapax' provided the defendant was aged between ten and fourteen could be liable for a crime committed only if the prosecution could prove that the child in question knew that the crime he/she did was against the law. Do Judges make law...? Too an extent I believe that judges make law, in which they can influence the decision made. They can also intercept the precedent where said precedent isn't spelt out for them, thus judges nevertheless have to make the decision for the case. Also judges have been left to define their own role, within the legal system, and the role of the courts generally in the political system. Thus they can define their own role as they please, without anyone to correct them on said role. Judges are also inhibited by the fact they have to follow precedent, unfortunately there may be conflicting precedents whereby the implications may be unclear, and so they have to make their own decisions on the ruling of the case. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System 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 University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. Discuss the extent to which the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy can be ...

    The ECJ held that national courts had to protect the rights laid down by Community law, and if that required that a national law be set aside, the national court was obliged to do so. The House of Lords went on to grant the injunction.

  2. "One of the hallmarks of any good decision-making process is consistency: judicial precedent helps ...

    ideal there as certain exceptions have to be applied and also courts have to take into consideration the Human Rights Act and European Court of Justice. To further understand the doctrine of binding precedent it must also be noted that there are potentially two elements of law within a precedent.

  1. Current Scots Law on Defence of Necessity.

    Gordon states the law in Scotland to be the same as in England in relation to desperate situations where the termination of one man's life could save another man's life. He asserts that a person could never escape criminal responsibility where he kills someone with the aim of saving himself36,

  2. Where judges do not follow precedent (or where they distinguish binding cases on dubious ...

    but once again such a system relies on comprehensive reporting of the decisions of the higher tribunal. Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Community are effectively binding on all courts as interpretations of Community law, and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights must now be

  1. Explain and Illustrate, the Operation of the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and Discuss how ...

    They are as follows: Judicial Precedent gives people a degree of certainty. For example, where a point has been settled lawyers are then able to advise their clients accordingly. A counter argument to this is the rigidity. This is typical of a system, which is open only to an annex;

  2. Law Making - Judicial Precedent.

    The judge may use a variety of sources to help persuade him what is the right decision. 1. Obiter Dicta - An appeal court judge in his obiter may have suggested how situations seminal to the one to the court might be dealt with if they were to arise. 2.

  1. Judicial precedent

    Below the Divisional Courts is the High Court. The High Court has to follow all the precedents of higher courts, and it binds the lower courts.

  2. Describe the most important features of the doctrine of judicial precedent.

    Misinterpretation of what was said may result in the meaning of the outcome being totally different. For the doctrine to be effective in evolution and expanding there must be a precise system of reports. In 1865 the Council of Law reporting was established in order to compile reports for cases heard in superior courts.

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