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

The doctrine of precedent comes from the Latin maxim stare decisis or stand by the already decision made. This is used in The English Legal System to bind the lower courts to the higher courts decisions.

Extracts from this document...


Michelle Jones VIT Essay 2:3 The doctrine of precedent comes from the Latin maxim 'stare decisis' or 'stand by the already decision made'. This is used in The English Legal System to bind the lower courts to the higher courts decisions. The House of Lords however, chose to tether itself to its own decisions that became known as 'binding precedent'. This was important to ensure consistency and fairness in the law as each case that shared similar or the same facts would receive the same outcome. This also allowed certainty in the law as it could be predicted what the possible outcome of a case could be. The doctrine of binding precedent also saved time and effort as it did not make it necessary for similar cases to be argued over again creating many individual instances. However, this 'binding precedent' can cause some injustices in law if previous decisions are not changed as over the decades, social doctrines change. The Court of Appeal is normally bound to follow the House of Lords decisions, however, in R v Karimi and R v James the Court of Appeal refused to follow a binding decision the House of Lords. In a case involving the statutory defence of provocation to charge of murder, the court declined to follow R v Smith (Morgan James) [2000] a House of Lords decision preferring to follow the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Attorney- General of Jersey v Holley [2005]. Persuasive precedent can influence a decision in a case and may be followed. Other then obiter dicta (other things said) the following may give rise to persuasive precedent: decisions of courts lower in the hierarchy, this can be applied when for instance the House of Lords is unhappy with one of their previous decisions and prefers the decision of a lower court; dissenting judgements-judgements that are unreasonable to follow; decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (seen above); or decisions of the courts in Scotland, Ireland, the Commonwealth and the USA, of other common law jurisdictions such as those of Australia and Canada. ...read more.


In the 80's and 90's the House of Lords showed increasing willingness to put in use of the Practice Statement to overrule previous decisions, e. g in R v Shivpuri [1986] overruled its decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985] on the basis that in both cases the individual had attempted to do something impossible. Another important use of the Practice statement was in R v R [1991] where it was held that r**e within marriage is a crime and overturned a legal principle that had stood for centuries. This is an example where judicial Precedent can be used to develop and evolve law so that it fits to societies' circumstances and becomes more relevant for use, especially with the use of the Practice Statement that 'updates' law. The Court of Appeal, Civil and Criminal divisions are bound by the House of Lords. The Civil Division is usually bound by its own previous decisions, but there are for four exceptions to this were; the previous decision was made in ignorance of a relevant law (it is said to have been made per incuriam); where there are two conflicting decisions or later were there are conflicting House of Lord's decisions; a proposition of law was assumed to exist by an earlier court and was not subject to argument or consideration by court. The first three exceptions were laid down in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1964]. The fourth was added by R (on the application of Kadhim) v Brent London Borough Housing Benefit Review Board [2001]. In the Criminal Division, the results of cases heard may decide whether or not an individual goes to prison, so the Criminal Division takes on a more flexible approach to its previous decisions and does not follow them where doing so could cause injustice. Judges can avoid an awkward precedent based on the case's facts- arguing that the case under consideration are different in some important way from those of the previous case, and therefore the rule laid down does not apply to them. ...read more.


Where each judge in the former case has given a different reason for coming to the same decision, or where, for example, two judges from the House of Lords take on view, two more another, and the fifth agrees with none of them, it can then be argued that there is no ratio decidendi for the decision. By stating that a previous case was made per incuriam- that it failed to acknowledge relevant law (a statute or precedent)-this is used very rarely as it undermines the status of the courts below. Courts can argue that a precedent is outdated and is no longer in step with modern thinking this best approach to this was in R v R [1991] overturning a centuries old common law rule that r**e within marriage was not a crime. Higher courts can avoid precedent by overruling or reversing cases. Overruling can occur when the legal principle of a lower court is overturned by a higher court in a subsequent case. It can, in the case of the House of Lords, overrule its own decisions made in an earlier different case. In Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners [1964] a case involving negligent misstatement, the House of Lords overruled a decision in the Court of Appeal decision in Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co. [1951] and in R v Shivpuri [1986] the House of Lords overruled its own earlier decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985]. Reversing is when a decision of a lower court is appealed to a higher one, the higher court may change it if they feel the lower court has wrongly interpreted or applied the law. When a decision is reversed so is the lower court's statement on the law. For example in Anderton v Ryan [1985] the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal when Mrs Ryan's conviction of handling stolen goods was upheld and was made invalid by the House of Lords. Word Count (without header and footer): 1,489 ...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 Sources of 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 AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    the english legal system unit1 assignment4

    4 star(s)

    However, s.71 and Schedule 10 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 amends the statutory qualification for judicial and other appointments, and the Lord Chancellor can now pick the person he considers most suitable. Thus potentially opens up appointment to the judiciary to others apart from Barristers.

  2. Marked by a teacher


    4 star(s)

    The House of Lords could choose to distinguish. Distinguishing allows you to make a new law if you can find enough differences between cases. You would be able to have a new law for the new facts. An example of distinguishing is the case of Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merrit.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Judicial Precedent

    3 star(s)

    Obiter dicta are not binding but they are persuasive. Persuasive precedents are precedents which may be followed by judges in the future should they choose. Should a judge choose to follow the obiter dicta of an earlier case, that obiter dicta then becomes the ratio decidendi of the later case.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Briefly explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent.

    3 star(s)

    where the House of Lords agreed with and followed the same reasoning as the Court of Appeal in deciding that a man could be guilty for r****g his wife. Courts operate a very rigid doctrine of judicial precedent which has the effect that every court is bound to follow any

  1. Jury Essay

    excusal and disqualification rates and that the homeless, who represent a big section of society, cannot vote because they are not on the electoral register. Also women are poorly represented as they are relied upon to look after children, and not all ethnic minorities have lived in this country for five years.

  2. Judicial Precedent

    advise whichever of the clients would be bound to lose, and not to bother bringing or fighting the case. In practise judges' decisions may not be as neutral as Blackstone's theory suggests, they have to make choices that are not spelt out by precedents.

  1. Why was the Apprenticeship system brought to an end in 1838 in the British ...

    were valued much more highly than their idle or unproductive counterparts, and the inflated valuations which the planters placed on them bore no relation to the wages offered for the extra work they performed.

  2. Critically evaluate the partial defence of Provocation.

    was relevant to the older boy's defence, especially as he had returned home to protect his brother. The old case of Duffy (1949) had ruled that the provocation had to be something 'done by the dead man to the accused', but the 1957 Act removes this requirement.

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