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

Discuss the argument for giving greater freedom to court of appeal to depart from past precedence.

Extracts from this document...


Discuss the argument for giving greater freedom to court of appeal to depart from past precedence. There are many arguments for and against greater freedom, which is given to the court of appeal to depart from past precedence. The Court of Appeal is bound by the decisions, which are made by the House of Lords and also the European court of justice and that basically they must follow or accept the decisions, which have previously been made and apply them to the relevant cases. The European court of justice is the most significant as its decisions are the most crucial as they bind all of the courts to act according to decisions which are made by them. ...read more.


However, where there had been decision made by the House of Lords which overrules a court of appeal decision the court of appeal must follow the decision of the House of Lords. Finally, for the reason that it was generally felt that the decision was a mistake and that it was carelessly made because a relevant act of parliament or other regulation had not been considered by the court. These three different exceptions provided the court of appeal with greater freedom effectively, but this has lead to many criticisms as well as responses suggesting that it's a good thing that the court of appeal have been offered some leeway to make significant decisions. The strengths of being given greater freedom would be that firstly very little amount of cases actually reach the House of Lords and therefore they ...read more.


face injustice if they appeal to the court of appeal and are given a conviction or claim that they must pay because of past precedence. This could be more significant if the issue is related to criminal law as opposed to civil law as it could lead to a firmer 'penalty'. So in relation to the argument that the house of lords hears cases on a rare basis it may lead to the conclusion that until a significant case is presented injustice may be done. So the fact that the court of appeal can go against past precedence and change the law when necessary such as where it is felt that the previous decision was a mistake or carelessly made because an act of court or regulations had not been considered properly for example. Nadia Ullah Lyn Davis ...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. A rule as to precedent (which any court lays down for itself) is not ...

    Every precedent is decided based on a prinicple, which is called the ratio of the case. The discretion lies in the fact that extracting the ratio is a matter of interpretation in itself. To avoid an unwelcomed precedent, the judge can always distinguish it on its facts, and state another case on generality to apply it.

  2. Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice

    The population in prisons has radically increased. From 1980 to 1999 the prison population has tripled. As Eric Schlosser notes, "California alone holds more inmates in its jails and prisons than do France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Singapore, and the Netherlands combined," (qtd in Easterbrook 57). This, along with the excessive prison terms, has contributed to the rise in the Federal Prison budget.

  1. "If the Constitution is the source of governmental power, and the judiciary interprets the ...

    the Agricultural Adjustment act of 1933 as unconstitutional, it is the job of the Supreme Court "to lay the article of the constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former."

  2. Describe how civil disputes can be resolved without going to court (this does not ...

    The purpose of the mediator is to give a basis to both parties from which to begin discussion to form a resolution. The mediators purpose is not suggest an overall solution to the problem being discussed, but is to develop the areas of discussion and to make sure that the full story has been heard and understood by both sides.

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