The House Of Lords ' Outlook Regarding The Doctrine Of Precedent

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

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.

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.

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.

Precedent- A legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

The Supreme Court, which does overrule its precedent from time to time, does not need to do a lengthy analysis of each precedent’s viability in every case. Rather, through its certiorari jurisdiction (certiorari – an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court), it selects cases and issues that allow it to reconsider precedent on its own time. When the Court decides that a previous decision may be in jeopardy, it often asks the parties to brief whether precedent should be overruled.4 The Court must still confront petitions questioning precedent, but it can dispose of these quickly and without explanation if it so chooses through a simple denial of certiorari. This shows that horizontal stare decisis is upheld in the

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.

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; -

In applying precedents and in interpreting the law, judges make laws which should also have been considered.

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

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."