‘Judicial Precedent Is Best Understood as a Practice of the Courts and Not as a Set of Binding Rules. as a Practice It Could Be Refined or Changed by the Courts as They Wish.’ Discuss

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.

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

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

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

It was, therefore, seen as a breach of judicial independence. However following the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009, senior judges no longer sit in the House of Lords which means are free of political influence and decision making – and in effect – from the legislature as they can speak out against the government.

By not overruling, court is in fact honoring a precedent previously held. Precedent is reflected in the obligation of lower courts to honor decisions made by higher courts (Vertical) and the binding of judges by decisions of earlier judges in similar matters (Horizontal/ Stare Decisis).

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.

e.  stare decisis: A judicial policy that guides courts in making decisions, normally requiring lower-level courts to follow the legal precedents that have been established by higher-level courts.

There are two types of judges, superior judges and inferior judges in the UK. The superior judges are entitled to work in the higher courts such as, the court of Appeal, and the House of Lords. Whereas, inferior judges work in the lower courts in the hierarchy such as crown courts and supreme courts. Superior judges are called district judges and inferior judges are called circuit judges. District judges are full-time judges who deal with the majority of cases in the county courts. These judges are appointed by the queen and mainly deal with claims and other matters within the court. However, Circuit

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

This scene has always impressed upon me the reluctance and recalcitrance of well-established judges refusing to not only embrace difficult cases to the fullest of their ability and potential, but who also willfully and knowingly avoid cases that stand to challenge established legal precedent, or stare decisis, in the pursuit of justice.

The Stare decisis was implemented as a doctrine in 1066 that served as a legal principle to recognize previous decisions as precedents to guide future deliberations. It is a type of principle that forms the basis for our modern law of adhering to precedent and makes the predictability in the law. The court means that the stare decisis standing by decided matters and the jurisdiction over them making it harder to argue a policy. Ultimately, a case that was decided on before could potentially end up being overturned. I believe that consistency is important when applying stare decisis with the decision of each case on individually basis. For example, there are several of cases that were consistent with parameters of the doctrine of stare decisis.

Time-saving. Where principles have been established, cases with familiar facts are unlikely to go through a lengthy process of litigation. The main disadvantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent are; -

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

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."