Task 1: Judicial Precedent In Law

2205 Words 9 Pages
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