Doctrine of precedent essay help
The Privy Council is the highest court in the Commonwealth nations and civil appeals. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal. This question is often asked: Why have Stare Decisis and why not let judges use their own conscience and wisdom to decide a case? One level includes stare decisis, this means to stand by what has been previously decided in a previous case and that this decision should be kept to and that you should in no way try to unsettle the established After the war, the landlord wanted the rental fee to be as used to be. My conclusion is thus; the principle of Stare Decisis has handicapped the development of the English Law because it makes the law rigid and inflexible. It is not easy for judges to find the binding part Ratio Decidendi of any case. Since these courts are the lowest they do not bind any other court except themselves. Certainty promotes predictability and this reduces the possibility for trial because everyone will know how certain cases will be decided. Introduction: A fundamental principle of judicial precedent is that a hierarchy of courts is needed if it is to operate. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There are two main principles that are involved in judicial precedent, there are ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. These courts however have little impact on the development of law except as a source for cases which may then be heard or appealed to higher courts. It is set for the precedent in the future case decision to be applied.
The House of Lords HL may follow a Court of Appeal CA decision on a particular case although as that decision is not a binding one the Judge is not obliged to do so, in spite of this there was a case in where the HL did chose to follow the decision previously set by the CA that was R V R which was a marital rape case the HL agreed with the CA and held the husband accountable.
My conclusion is thus; the principle of Stare Decisis has handicapped the development of the English Law because it makes the law rigid and inflexible. Stevenson which brought a major development on the negligence law.
Can the Doctrine of Stare Decisis be avoided? Since these courts are the lowest they do not bind any other court except themselves.
Doctrine of precedent essay help
The original precedent means that there will be a new precedent to be set, as there is no previous decision for the judge to follow until that point of time. Text preview of this essay: This page of the essay has words. According to the Partington , the primary reasoning of the decision does not account by the Obiter Dicta; therefore, the future decisions will not be bundled. Ratio Decidendi is the reason for coming to the decision. There are three judges who sit to hear an appeal. One level includes stare decisis, this means to stand by what has been previously decided in a previous case and that this decision should be kept to and that you should in no way try to unsettle the established It is set for the precedent in the future case decision to be applied. The procedure by which judges follow decisions of previous cases is regarded as the doctrine of judicial precedent. When is a judge bound?
The first part will define the Ratio Dicidendi, the Stare Decisis and the Obiter Dicta in the English legal system, and the second part will describe the types of precedent and how to operate doctrine of precedent, and how to avoid judicial precedent.
Obiter Dictum plural Dicta : A saying by the way only has an occasional bearing on the case in question, it is not necessary for the judgement of a case as it is just a view expressed by a Judge on a point of law which is not directly connected to the case.
This generates a precedent, contained in law reports that may be relied on in the future.
There are two main principles that are involved in judicial precedent, there are ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum.
When the ratio binds any part of a court depends on the original decision that was made. The CA is the first appeal court if a further appeal is required the case then progresses onto the HL.
This simply means that judges must obey previous judicial decisions of higher courts. Some may argue that having two appeal courts can be an advantage the question lies in whether there is really a need for two appeal courts in the court structure when, it is possible for one to carry out the combined work of the two, the solution to this is of course to abolish one the obvious one to go would be the HL.
based on 107 review