Characteristics Of Law And Precedents In The English Common Law System

The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.

Judicial precedent as a whole is the way in which English law provides and maintains consistency and predictability. This assumption of consistency and predictability through judicial precedent allows the law to exude a sense of certainty, fairness and by extension some amount of flexibility; but the question is, how can something which is consistent and predictable to such a degree that it is considered certain exhibit flexibility? After all one would think that in order to be consistent and predictable there must be rigidity involved.

The rules of precedent themselves are judge made, except where a statute has intervened. Occasionally, judges have to decide on a case where there is

Historically, common law emphasized the importance of judicial decisions rather than utilizing the structure of codes, legal rules, and statutes as courts do today. In the past, judges documented and issued their decisions which were later circulated from one court to another and became known as common law. In cases where parties disagreed, common law court would look at previous decisions made in related cases and incorporate those decisions into the current case (Siegel, et al., 2011). If similar disputes had been resolved in the previous case, the court would utilize the same perspective to resolve their current case. This became known as precedent and like common law, continues to be utilized in today’s court system (Siegel, et al., 2011).

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

* Case Law/Precedent/STARE DECISIS – Case Law is the doctrines and principles announced in cases. It governs all areas not covered by statutory law or administrative law and is part of our common law tradition. A Precedent is a decision that furnished an example of authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar legal principles or facts. For example, when a judge is making a ruling on a case, the judge may refer back to a similar case to see what the previous ruling was to keep the result similar. Stare Decisis is the practice of this process, deciding new cases with reference

When a decision is made for a new dispute, in a common law system, the judgement is passed as a precedent. A precedent is a verdict made by legal authorities for a principle or rule that provides guidance for any future cases having similar issues. Precedents are supported by the doctrine of precedent also known as ‘stare decisis’. ‘Stare decisis’ is a Latin term translating to ‘the decision stands’. This doctrine is a legal principle that judges are obliged to follow and respect (Milgate P, 2013). This implies, that any future cases with similar circumstances should have the same verdict (punishment/decision etc.) as the precedent. Precedents are followed to ensure fair treatment and so that law is developed in a consistent manner providing older cases with the authority and structure for current judges to make their decisions. When there is no precedent a decision is met through existing statute laws

This paper will cover topics such as; what a court is and what the purpose of the court is. This paper will define the dual court system. In addition this paper will describe the role that early legal codes, the common law and the precedent played in the development of courts. And lastly this paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.

preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” Robert Dahl chose to study these propositions by studying the Supreme Courts ability to invalidate Acts of Congress, concluding that only rarely will the court counter congress by striking legislation.

To begin, common law originated in Medieval England in the time of King Henry II. The practice developed sending circuit judges from the King’s central court to travel throughout England to hear the various disputes. The aim of these courts (assizes) was to add consistency and fairness to the legal system. Alongside the traveling courts King Henry also established the jury system. Over time these judges recorded the information of each case they heard as well as the decisions and punishments that were ordered. This is known as case law or common law. This began a justice system that relied on the principle of stare decisis or “to stand by the decision”. This principle developed into the rule of precedent which was used to apply the previous decision to a case with similar circumstance. This system was used throughout the country and thus was known as common law. As the English began colonizing Canada they brought their legal systems with them, which greatly influenced today’s legal system.

Common law is law originating from use and custom rather than from written statutes. The term refers to non-statutory customs, traditions, and precedents that help guide judicial decision making (Schmalleger). The judge

It's referring to precedents. Precedents are previous decisions of the court that need to be followed by courts in the same or lower in the hierarchy. The court must give consideration but there is no rule on how it should apply it to the facts of the case at hand.

The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which ‘lets the decision stand’. ‘Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in all similar cases, making the law more predictable’ making it easier for people to live within the law.

The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis which means ‘to stand by what has been decided’. It is a common law principle whereby judges are bound to follow previous decisions in cases where the material facts are sufficiently similar and the earlier decision was made in a court above the current one in the court hierarchy. This doctrine of precedent is extremely strong in English law as it ensures fairness and consistency and it highlights the importance of case law in our legal system. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

The judges in the lower courts are bound to follow previous decision of the higher courts. It is an essential component of the common law as it is important of adequate law reporting. It is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision-making.