Task 1: Judicial Precedent In Law

Superior Essays
Task 1
Judicial precedent is based on the Latin maxim: stare decisis, meaning 'let the decision stand '. Precedent in law is to follow a previous judgment or decision that has been made in court. This is recorded in a law report, and used as an authority for reaching the same decision in subsequent cases. This makes precedents binding, and therefore they must be followed through the court hierarchy, from the Supreme Court down to the Magistrates. Distinguishing a case means a court decides the holding or legal reasoning of a precedent case will not apply due to materially different facts between the two cases. Judges have the power to override, overrule and reverse a precedent due to the court hierarchy, but can also disapprove a decision
…show more content…
As there are three readings and two stages in each of the Houses of Parliament, it provides several opportunities for debate, scrutiny and amendment, ensuring that any mistakes or poor drafting can be corrected.
Another advantage is that government has considerable control over parliamentary law-making. It controls parliamentary timetable for debates and is likely to win at each stage of the process unless a number of its own MPs vote against it. This is democratic because of the government.
Furthermore, the House of Lords acts as a checking mechanism as it can guard against laws being passed solely for the government’s political agenda. If the House of Lords exercises its power of delay, there will be further opportunity for debate and amendment of the bill’s provisions. This could equally be disadvantageous as a lengthy and slow process could take many months which is not appropriate when important laws need to be made quickly. This is known as the ping pong
…show more content…
Regulations will normally become the law in all of the EU member states immediately after they come into force, not requiring any implementing measures and overriding conflicting domestic provisions. Directives will require all member states to comply with and achieve a common result, but it is up to each country to decide how best to implement these directives. The European Court of Justice will ensure that the application and interpretation of EU laws do not differ between member

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Thus, there is something uneasy about upholding moral principles society cannot agree upon, especially when this process has no other virtues. Judges deferring to Parliamentary decisions However, there is great tension as soon as we change our beliefs on the nature of law and hence, the legal reasoning implemented regarding the extent to which judges shape the law. For example, with positivism – under either Hart or Kelsen – law is separate from morality. Under Hart’s theory, there is some room for judges to apply discretion, as rules have a core of easy meaning and application, and a penumbra of uncertainty. However, for the most part, judges are to apply the clear legal rules which are posited.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Although deciding cases according to principle may involve constructive interpretation of legal materials, the decisions reached in this way will not be subjective, but will be objectively grounded in existing law. b. Judges who reason this way will be acting according to their institutional responsibilities and therefore the law will have maximum integrity: i. It will be as if the judge is writing a chapter in a chain novel: each new rule is necessarily shaped and changed by what has gone before it. Law and Morality: Dworkin disagrees with Hart’s separation of laws and morality, but he says that following rules is an important principle itself and is backed by an institutional right to have one’s case decided by a court acting on established rules.…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Corbett CJ held that whether an error of law was reviewable depended on whether the legislature had intended the administrator (or administrative body) to have ‘exclusive powers regarding the interpretation of the statutory provision’ in question . Corbett CJ held that this was a matter of how the statute that conferred the power was constructed . Corbett CJ suggested guidelines for how to approach this: (a) where the powers or functions in question are of a purely judicial nature, a court will be reluctant to conclude that the tribunal is intended to have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the meaning of a statutory criterion . ‘‘Purely judicial’ cases are cases in which the tribunal is merely required to decide whether or not a person’s conduct falls within a defined and objectively ascertainable statutory criterion’ ; (b) ‘whether or not an erroneous interpretation of law renders the decision invalid depends on materiality of error’ . ‘If, for instance, the facts found by the tribunal are such as to justify the decision even on a correct interpretation of the statutory criterion, then normally there would be no ground for interference’ ; and (c) ‘where the power is of a discretionary nature, the general approach to establishing the intention of the legislature might be different’ .…

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Judicial Precedent Essay

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages

    It can be claimed that the doctrine hinders common law but on the reverse, it can also aid it. Tensions can arise between the two because precedent requires courts to treat earlier cases as correctly ruled. Two different types of decision making should then be outlined, these being ‘rule based’ and ‘reason based’ decisions. When a decision is made it can either be made on the strict rules that apply to the situation or on the balance of all relevant reason. The contrast of these two types of decisions can lead to some desecration of how judicial law making is brought about because due to the doctrine, courts must take the former approach.…

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Justice Macalia Textualism

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages

    As argued by Judge Richard A. Posner, strict constructionism, or what he refers to as “legal formalism” adheres to principles of the law that are “too narrow” (O’Brien 204). Judge Posner further argues that in legal formalism, the text of the law is meant “to decide whether the right exists,” as they are written in the Constitution (O’Brien 204). By that account, although strict constructionism only reads the text and uses a literal meaning, it still applies the literal intent of the law. For that reason, Judge Posner argues that when using the element of meaning, Judges cannot make their decisions by reading the text directly (O’Brien 207). As Judge Posner states, the Constitution does not say, “read me broadly or read me narrowly” (O’Brien 207), as to suggest that the meaning of the text should not be interpreted…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Introduction Legal formalism is a belief, in the capacity of legal rules, to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness. Formalism posits that judicial interpreters can and should be tightly constrained by the objectively determinable meaning of a statute; if unelected judges exercise much discretion in these cases, democratic governance is threatened. Legal-formalist have been severely criticised by, among others, legal realist and critical legal studies scholars. This essay aims to discuss the criticism of legal formalism by the above mentioned movement and school of thought. This will be achieved by critically engaging with questions of whether criticisms of legal…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The issue with letting Parliament decide on these matters is that Parliament is under pressure from the majority, which can lead to enacting draconian measures against who they fear is the enemy, which is usually a minority with little protection . The courts are removed from this pressure and can question the need for new polices that Parliament may introduce which can infringe on human rights . The legitimacy of the judiciary comes from that fact that it has to have rational arguments, its decisions must come from a legal authority and the judiciary is independent from politics ensuring an unbiased opinion . This gives legitimacy to judicial decisions against unjust laws passed by the government. This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals.…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Should Judges Make Law

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages

    It is based on the Latin Maxim Stare Decisis, which means to stand by the decided, but only if the facts before the judges are the same or similar. Precedent is a rigid system as a decision by a higher court in an earlier case, must be followed by a lower court in a later, similar case, so there is no scope for judicial creativity. In order for precedent to later, similar case, so there is no scope for judicial creativity. In order for precedent to operate it is necessary for there to be a court hierarchy. The decisions of the higher court bind lower courts and some of the courts are also bound by their own previous…

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    For example, when judges rule on cases which involve weighing up several legal rules, they exercise their discretionary abilities to find a course of action that they feel is the best. But these ‘moral’ issues, the soft positivist proposes, are no more than social attitudes and norms; morality does not transcend a society. The laws allowing slavery would be deemed evil today, while at the time they reflected what was socially acceptable. Hard positivism, defended by Joseph Raz , maintains that law and morality not only need not be connected, they must not be connected. The concept of law can only be explained without any reference to morality at all.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Government Vs Constitution

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Jefferson’s first approach to constitutional interpretation is that each branch must decide for themselves the constitutionality of a law, “equally without appeal or control” from the other two branches. A branch is deemed the “rightful” expositor of the validity of the law, disregarding the opinions of the other branches. A strength of this is that each branch can interpret the Constitution for themselves and focus on how the Constitution relates to the interest they are focusing on. They are able to form stronger opinions, since they will not be second-guessing their opinions based on the input of the other branches. A disadvantage, as Jefferson points out, is that contradictory decisions may arise, which results in confusion and produces inconvenience.…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays