Do You Agree with the View Expressed in Lord Gardiner’s Practice Statement of 1966 That the English Doctrine of Binding Precedent “Is an Indispensable Foundation on Which to Decide What Is the Law?

    The state intermediate courts hear appeals from the trial court (Goldman and Cheeseman 10). These courts review the record from the trial court to determine errors that can ultimately modify or reverse the decision in a case. The highest state courts (commonly known as

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.

b. From this, the principle may influential to individual justices that can compare the current case to that of a previous ruling, and in result the justice may choose the same ruling that was given to the similar case.

The next step in the ladder is the District Court; like the Local Court, it has both Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction, however it hears most indictable offences in jury trials. The Supreme Courts Trial Division has original civil and criminal jurisdiction, but it only hears the most serious of criminal cases (like murder or terrorism). Additionally, its’ Court of Appeal hears direct appeals from the District Court and Supreme Court trial division – it usually only hears appeals regarding questions of law and not fact.

It would be impractical for judges to not make law in some situations as both parties in the case would not want the judge to refuse to deal with the case and they would want the matter decided. ‘Judicial decisions are important as a source of law on matters where the government is

Stare decisis “to let the decision stand” operates in a pyramid-type fashion and is the doctrine that judicial decisions stand as precedent for cases arising in the future. It is a fundamental policy of our law that, except in unusual circumstances, a court’s determination on a point of law will be followed by courts of the same or lower rank in later cases presenting the same legal issue, even though different parties are involved and any years have elapsed.

xiii) Influence of EU ensures that altering UK constitution is hard – cannot be incompatible

first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.

<br>Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court. This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.

Court decision rules and help make the outcome of case law. The important of case law is it can be interprets with statues, regulation, constitutional provisions and other case law. (Miller, 2017). Judges decisions which are made in previous cases can make a case law. Case laws decisions can come from civil lawsuit, state court, local court and federal court. For example, if I had file a civil lawsuit against someone about an incident and win the case. A few years later, somebody else has a similar incident, but loses their case. The court the court must use the previous court’s decision in applying the law.

Basically, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the decision of a higher court within the same provincial

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

Rigidity. Due to the lower courts having to follow decisions of higher courts, coupled with the fact that the Court of Appeal has to follow its own past decisions, it can make the law too inflexible so that bad decisions made in the past may be perpetuated. -

The lower courts are bound by the House of Lords so they have to apply

Other persuasive precedents include decisions of the Scottish courts and those made in the courts of other Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. This may be because a case with these particular facts has not been heard in the English Courts before but may have been heard in another country. This was the case in R v R (1991) where the Court of Appeal and House of Lords followed previous decisions made by the Scottish courts that a man could be found guilty of raping his wife.