Judicial Precedent Essay



The regle of joining precedent means the process whereby judges comply with previously made a decision cases where the facts are of sufficient likeness. The regle of legislativo precedent consists of an application with the principle of stare decisis i. e., to uphold the made a decision. In practice, this means that inferior legal courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier circumstances. This provides regularity and predictability in the law. RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTUM

The choice or judgement of a judge may fall into two parts: the rate decidendi (reason for the decision) and obiter dictum (something said by the way). RATIO DECIDENDI - The ratio decidendi of a circumstance is the principle of regulation on which a choice is based. If a judge offers judgement within a case this individual outlines the important points which this individual finds have been completely proved on the evidence. Then simply he does apply the law to those facts and arrives at a decision, for which this individual gives the cause (ratio decidendi). OBITER DICTUM - The judge may go on to take a position about what his decision will or might have been if the facts of the case was different. This can be an obiter dictum. The binding element of a contencioso decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is usually not holding in later cases since it was not strictly relevant to the situation in a significant the original circumstance. However , a great obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later circumstances. A difficulty develops in that, although the judge will offer reasons for his decision, he may not always claim what the proportion decidendi is definitely, and it is then simply up to a after judge to " elicit" the ratio of the situation. There may possibly, however , end up being disagreement above what the proportion is and there may be multiple ratio. THE COURT HIERARCHY


Underneath s3(1) in the European Areas Act 1972, decisions in the ECJ will be binding, in matters of Community rules, on almost all courts up to and including the House of Lords. THE PROPERTY OF LORDS

This is the maximum court inside the land unless of course a matter of EC regulation is included. The House of Lords was bound by simply its own earlier decisions until 1966 when ever Lord Gardiner LC announced a change of practice. The Practice Statement [1966] mentioned that although the House of Lords would treat its decisions since normally joining it would go from these kinds of when it appeared right to accomplish that. This electrical power has been used sparingly. A conclusion of the House of Lords binds all lower courts.


The Court of Appeal is sure by decisions of the House of Lords even if it thinks them to be wrong. In Young sixth is v Bristol Rudder Co Limited [1944] the Court of Appeal placed that it was certain by its own previous decisions subject to the subsequent three conditions: * Wherever its own previous decisions conflict, the Court of Charm must decide which to follow and which to reject. 2. The Court docket of Charm must will not follow a decision of a unique which cannot stand having a decision of the home of Lords even though the decision has not been expressly overruled by the Property of Lords. * The Court of Appeal will not need to follow a decision of a unique if satisfied that it was provided per incuriam (literally, simply by carelessness or mistake). Decisions of the Courtroom of Appeal itself will be binding on the High Court docket and the region court COURT OF CHARM (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

In rule there is no difference in the using stare decisis in the detrimental and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal. In practice, however , beyond the Young conditions, because a person's liberty may be at stake, precedent is not really followed since rigidly inside the criminal department. In L v Taylor [1950] the Court of Appeal held that in 'questions relating to the liberty from the subject' when a full courtroom considered that 'the regulation has possibly been misapplied or misunderstood' then it need to reconsider the sooner decision. THE HIGH COURT

The Substantial Court is usually bound by the Court of Appeal plus the House...