Outline the key features of judicial precedent.

Judicial precedent concerns itself with the influence and value of past decisions of case law and prior legal experience.

Grade: A-C | £0.00.

Outline the key features of judicial precedent.

 

A fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of judicial precedent rests, is that a hierarchy of courts is needed if it is to operate. The concept of stare decisis, meaning stand by what has been decided, forms the basis of the doctrine of judicial precedent. The notion is that like cases should be treated alike for the sake of certainty and consistency which, it is argued, leads to fairness.

 

The effect of this is that, ordinarily, the legal reasoning on a point of law made in an earlier case must be followed. However if all courts regardless of their status or seniority were able to set precedent the doctrine of judicial precedent would be a nonsense as it would be practically impossible to determine which precedent took precedence!

 

The doctrine of judicial precedent has overcome this by the requirement that all courts are strictly bound to follow decisions made by the courts above them in the hierarchy. In addition appellate courts are normally bound by their own past decisions.

 

The doctrine of judicial precedent operates in the English legal system and it is accepted that certain principles apply and these will be dealt with in turn.

 

In the case of European law, whilst the European Court of Justice is not part of our legal structure, our law is subject to European law and to give effect to this concept, the decisions of the European Court are binding on all courts in England and Wales. This is not to say that the European Court is bound by its own past decisions because the European court is not so bound. The reason for this is said to be that other European countries have a more flexible approach to precedent than we do and this is particularly the case in countries which have civil codes.

 

With regard to our own hierarchy, we start with the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the UK and as such its decisions must be followed by all other courts in England and Wales. There are only limited exceptions to this rule and these are where a decision conflicts with a decision of the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.

 

As an appellate court one would expect the Supreme Court to be bound by its own decisions and this is ordinarily the case and the Supreme Court will regard its own past decisions as binding.

 

The Supreme court can however depart from its previous decisions if it '..appears right to do so'. This is permitted under the terms of the 1966 Practice Statement which was issued by the Lord Chancellor Lord Gardiner in response to criticisms that the previous system of considering itself as being always bound was too rigid and may have led to injustice in individual cases

 

The Court of Appeal must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court (Broome v Cassell & Co (1971). This issue came to a head in the cases of Schorsch Meier GmbH v Henning (1975) and Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles)Ltd (1976).

 

In the case of Schorsch Meier GmbH v Henning (1975) the Court of Appeal, led at the time by Lord Denning, did not follow the House of Lords decision in Havana Railways (1961) which determined that damages should only be awarded in sterling, and the award was made in Deutschmarks. This led to the case of Miliangos reaching the House of Lords, and judgement was given in Swiss Francs. The House had been given the chance of overruling the Havana case and took the opportunity to do so. Had the decision in Schorsch followed the House of Lords decision in Havana Railways, the Swiss firm of Miliangos would not have appealed and would have taken judgement in sterling and the House of Lords would not have had the opportunity to overrule the Havana case.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is bound to follow its own past decisions
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944). Whereas the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is

allowed some flexibility to depart from a decision when dealing with a case where a person's liberty is at stake (R v Taylor (1950)).

 

Divisional courts are required to follow their own previous decisions (Huddersfield Police Authority v Watson (1947)) and must follow the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal decisions.

 

It makes sense therefore that the High Court is bound by the doctrine of precedent to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Divisional Courts. Ordinarily the High court is not bound to follow its own past decisions but in the event of two conflicting decisions, the later decision is to be preferred provided it was reached after a full consideration of the law Colchester Estates v Carlton Industries(1984).

 

The Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates' Court are regarded as inferior courts and must follow the decisions of the courts above them in the hierarchy,( the Superior Courts). Inferior courts do not create precedent.

 

Another key feature of judicial precedent is the Latin term 'ratio decidendi' and means that part of the judgement which is delivered at the end of a case which explains the reasons for the decision. This is the important part of the judgement given by the judge dealing with the case.

The doctrine of judicial precedent would not be able to operate if it were not for the requirement that the legal reason for past decisions must be stated. It is this part of the judgement which sets a precedent for other judges to follow.

Not every part of the judgement is binding - other parts of the judgement which are not binding may consist of a brief summary or outline of the facts of the case and a review of the legal arguments put to the judge/s by the advocates in the case which usually precedes the decision itself and the legal reasoning behind the decision.



Some cases can be particularly complicated, leading to a review of the law consisting of many past decisions made over a long period of time. In addition things are not made any easier if there are several judges. This will probably be the case in important appeal cases in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and it may be necessary to consider not just one speech but several. This may be further complicated as each judge is entitled to set out their own legal reasoning leading to their decision so legal advisers may have to examine more than one ratio in the judgement.

The 'ratio decidendi' should be contrasted with parts of the judgement which are known as 'obiter dicta' which simply means 'other things said'. Such remarks made by the judge, although sometimes helpful and influential, are not binding. Obiter statements are a form of persuasive precedent in that whilst they are not binding they may be taken into account and a judge may be persuaded to follow the obiter remarks or reasoning.

A well known example of this kind of persuasive precedent is the case of R v Howe (1987) in which the House of Lords ruled that duress could not form a defence to a charge of murder and then went on to say obiter that they saw no good reason why it should be a defence to a charge of attempted murder. Subsequently in R v Gotts (1992) a young defendant was charged with the attempted murder of his mother and pleaded duress as a defence. The Court of Appeal decided to follow the obiter remarks in Howe and rejected the defence.

If cases were not properly recorded the doctrine of judicial precedent would fail. The doctrine is, by definition, dependent upon being able to refer back to past decisions and if those decisions are not reported and therefore not recorded the concept would be unworkable.

Prior to 1865 there were various systems of law reporting but since that date the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting has been responsible for producing official accounts of decisions.

There are also other reports such as the Weekly Law Reports, Current Law Reports and the All England Law Reports. The existence of these various reports has resulted in the development of a recognised method of citation in which the year of the report is used and letters to indicate the source of the report e.g. (1953) WLR, so as to show that the report can be found in the Weekly Law Reports. Volume numbers are also included to indicate the particular volume in which the case can be found.

Law reports can now be widely found on the internet as well as in book form and this has improved accessibility generally and the speed with which reports can be made available to the legal profession. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have official sites on the internet but there are other subscription sites that have developed to respond to the increasing demand for readily available law reports.

The fact that there is a system of law reporting does not mean that every single case is reported. Some cases may only be referred to informally in a newspaper report. Such reports still have a value but the court's permission to use such 'unreported cases' must be obtained before they can be used.



(Word count 1555)

English Judicial Precedent - Fun Facts, Questions, Answers ...

Stare Decisis;

Ratio Decidendi;

Obiter Dicta

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972]

This essay describes the fundamental principles upon which the doctrine of judicial precedent rests, it also refers to The Practice Statement 1966.

The cases of Schorsch Meier GmbH v Henning (1975) and Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles)Ltd (1976) are examined and the effect of the decision taken in  Schorsch is detailed.

The meaning of ratio decidendi is covered as is the importance and significance of law reporting.

The links provided will allow you to do further research.

Young -v- Bristol Aeroplane Company - YouTube

Precedent in the Divisional Court | The Law Gazette

Related Items

The items below list this Essay as being related in some way.

Tags

There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds