• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

    It is not the decision in a case, which is binding, but rather the rule of law on which the decision was based on. This element is known as the ratio decidendi. A decision of a court will usually contains numerous elements: finding of material facts, statements of the rule

  2. Sources of Law - Judicial precedent.

    which is intended to create legal relations and in pursuance of such arrangement one party make a promise to the other he knows will be acted on and which is in fact acted on by the promise, the promise is binding on the promisor to the extent that it will

  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. Current Scots Law on Defence of Necessity.

    (other than in cases of self defence which are not relevant here), matters must be left to take their own course. The defence of necessity should never be made available to an accused in that situation in Scotland, if it was, the law would be made a mockery and ridiculed by society.

  1. 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.

  2. Judicial precedent

    The disadvantages include rigidity in law. The rule of judicial precedent means that judges should follow a binding precedent even where they think it is a bad law or inappropriate. Also it is very complex and involves a lot of work which makes it very difficult to pinpoint appropriate principles.

  1. 'The role of the judge is to declare what the law is, and not ...

    decision made in one case is binding on all following cases of similar facts in the lower courts. When deciding cases judges can create legal rules, and these are made in a particular way. These legal rules are found in the judgement that is delivered to the court. The judgement(s)

  2. Critical analysis of three main defences of voluntary manslaughter for women defendants who kill ...

    If she is unable to do so, she may possibly face life imprisonment for being a victim or a punch bag to her partner A way to prevent battered women killing, is to provide more assistance towards them, one way could be an escape from the violence totally.

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