Judicial Precedent Essay

Improved Essays
Judicial Precedent When critically analysing to what extent the doctrine of Judicial Precedent affects Judicial Law making, one must first contemplate what the doctrine of Judicial Precedent is. The doctrine of Judicial Precedent is fundamentally a rule that all lower courts are to be bound by the decision or ratio decidendi of the higher courts. As a result of this, cases that are alike are decided in a similar way. However, it is not this simple, as it will be seen throughout this essay that a lot more circumstances are involved that affect the judicial law making process. Judicial Law making (otherwise known as common law) is law that is made within the courts that judges decide on creating. Through relevant case law and journal articles …show more content…
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. Rule based decisions are supported by Sir William Blackstone who observed the declaratory theory of precedent and believed that, ‘the role of a judge is to discover and declare the law but not make it.’ This view however is criticised and considered a two dimensional view due to the court hierarchy system. When cases escalate up the hierarchy, it allows for more flexibility in common law and as a result, allows higher ranked judges to overrule or reverse decisions depending on the …show more content…
The implementation of the Practice Statement is an example of the reason based decisions of courts, as the House of Lords were ultimately re-writing common law. The case of R v G demonstrates the use of the Practice Statement by abandoning a previous rule used for over twenty years established in R v Caldwell . Implementing the Practice Statement and the Lords overruling a decision shows the positive aspect of judicial precedent, as it meant that the Lords were able to come to the right decision that benefitted the defendants who were given an unjust sentence, due to the powers given to them. A constraint of this is can be considered due to how far the case had come up the hierarchy to come to the decision. This potentially wasted a lot of time and money going through the different courts, in a case which any Judge of sound mind could have amended the common law, but were bound by the doctrine. There are instances when the Practice Statement is not a sufficient way of remedying a situation and departing from previous precedent. In the case of R v Khawaja Lord Scarman clarified when it is right to use the Practice Statement to depart from a previous decision and this case was not. The defendant in this case was relying on previous precedent laid out in Zamir. Lord

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    This concept came about when cases or decisions became common knowledge. For example, in the English legal community, judges who had heard of similar cases may have treated cases alike or even establish some standard of offences. This is known as unwritten laws. Comparative to today 's judges and lawyers referring to earlier decisions to influence or gauge judges when reaching a verdict. Trial lawyers spend a large portion of their time presenting similar or identical cases in hopes of persuading the judge to reach a similar decision.…

    • 1277 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Another important complication to this area of the law arises when considering civil circumstances that may result in criminal sanctions. This is something that will also be considered in detail throughout this essay, and would cause me to argue that the law in this area is not clear and straightforward. In criminal cases the crown must prove the accused committed offence beyond reasonable doubt. In some cases there is a persuasive burden on accused, this discharged by proof on the balance of probabilities. This is the first demonstration of the crossover between the two standards that aim to be distinct and clear.…

    • 1066 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In this model, judges act purely according to their own viewpoints, beliefs and preferences regardless of their court coworker’s reaction and response. For this reasons, this model of judicial behavior seems to lack theoretical consistency and reasoning. Judges’ policy preferences have a significant and possibly larger role in the judicial decisions making process (Ivers). Thus, legal considerations are also relevant in this process and cannot be ignored due to the fact that judges make decisions inside a legal framework.…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Bhagwat argues “the Court indicates an unwillingness to share its power to make new law, which is an aspect of the judicial power, with other courts within the federal judiciary..” However, if the Court shared its power to make new law, the results would have a wide scope of variance throughout state to state and region to region. Considering there are eleven district courts and ninety-four United States district courts, it would be difficult to satisfy each judge on what he or she would like to input into a new law to best fit everyone.…

    • 1832 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Judicial Restraint Essay

    • 1859 Words
    • 8 Pages

    As we know about the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, coming from varied religious and ethnic backgrounds with six males and three females. Presidents nominate Justices for life tenure and they must be confirmed by majority vote of the Senate. According to NY Times article that has the title” Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide”, on June 27th, the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 that same-sex couples have a ‘fundamental’ right to marry, and thus overturned the laws of at least 17 states. In this assignment, I will discuss the arguments both for and against judicial activism vs. judicial restraint, using the 2015 gay marriage case of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT…

    • 1859 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1) Legal 2) Attitudinal 3) Strategic With the vague words of the constitution and these 3 models this is how the Supreme Court justices are to make decisions. 1) The legal aspect of the decision-making is strictly based on the facts, laws & precedent.…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hutchinson and Monahan see the thick rule of law as being committed to a certain vision of social justice that has respect for individual rights and fights to protect them. It serves to actively limit democratic rule by having an active judiciary that is able to strike down invalid laws in defense of political morality. The main distinction between the two visions of the rule of law is the way in which justice is utilized. With thin rule of law, procedural justice operates with common law and deals with and lays down the ways and means by which substantive law can be enforced. The thick rule of law is based on substantive law which is in turn represented by the implementation of statutory law by governmental powers in an effort to establish rights and obligations of individuals.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court should be able to overturn unconstitutional laws that Congress has passed. There are many reasons to give the Supreme Court this power, first we need someone to enforce the fact that no law should violate the Constitution. Next, it helps balance the three branches of government, and lastly the Constitution puts judicial power into the Supreme Court and inferior courts. This power will stop substandard laws from getting passed, and will protect the structure of our government that is extremely based on the Constitution.…

    • 516 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court will follow precedent — the cases it has previously decided. Even justices who might disagree with a precedent (including those who dissented when the case was originally decided) will almost always feel bound to apply it to later cases. As decisions on a particular issue accumulate, the Court might clarify or modify its doctrines, but the earlier precedents will mark the starting point. History is full of examples of newly elected presidents vowing to change particular precedents of the Supreme Court, but failing despite the appointment of new justices. Stare decisis ensures that doctrinal changes are likely to be gradual rather than abrupt and that well-entrenched decisions are unlikely to be overturned.…

    • 1170 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    [We] have aptly summarized this quest, based on [the Court of Appeals’] past decisions, as one that requires an examination of the statutory text in context, a review of legislative history to confirm conclusions or resolve questions from that examination, and a consideration of the consequences of alternative readings. “Text is the plain language of the relevant provision, typically given its ordinary meaning, viewed in context, considered in light of the whole statute, and generally evaluated for ambiguity. Legislative purpose, either apparent from the text or gathered from external sources, often informs, if not controls, our reading of the statute. An examination of interpretive consequences, either as a comparison of the results of each proffered construction, or as a principle of avoidance of an absurd or unreasonable reading, grounds the court’s interpretation in reality.” Town of Oxford v. Koste, 204 Md. App. 578, 585–86, 42 A.3d 637 (2012), aff'd, 431 Md. 14, 63 A.3d 582 (2013) (citations…

    • 359 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The role of Judges in our court system is one of the most important roles within our relative communities, they are the main point of interpretation when it comes to the law. Be it civil or criminal, they assess the evidence, and hopefully have an unbiased mind towards the pursuit of justice. Despite legislature being made through Parliament, Judges are able to teach the people through the means of precedent what laws actually mean. They help the general public to know to what extent they are abiding by the law and punishable offences under the law. The question that is being asked is whether or not Judges have the right to be creative in their rulings, or should they simply apply the law just the way it is?…

    • 1112 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Judiciary is the section of government which is tasked with interpreting laws passed by parliament. In the USA the constitution established the Supreme Court under article 3 of the constitution. It is the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation and its decisions can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment. In the UK, a supreme court was established in 2009 to provide greater clarity in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. In the UK, under the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, it is parliament which makes the laws but it is the courts who are tasked with interpreting them.…

    • 1432 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Customary law is a system based on the interpretation of a court case, based on prior cases. This approach is called stare decisis (Scalia 4) which is deciding a case based on precedent. The practice of stare decisis is highly criticized by Scalia. Justice Scalia explains that the system of case precedent or common law review, has two main problems. The first one cited by Justice Scalia is that, common law review applied the law to the fact of a case.…

    • 1507 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Dworkin on Judicial Discretion in “Hard Cases” Lu Zhao Boyu (Bozy) | A0127866R In the standard courtroom, one could reasonably expect the judge to be the one responsible for the holding of a case. However, does and should the judge exercise his own discretion when deciding cases? Prominent legal theorist H. L. A. Hart claims that judges do exercise discretion, especially in “hard cases”, where there is no pre-existing or unambiguous rule. To this matter, Hart’s brilliant student Ronald Dworkin offers an alternative theory, which argues that judges do not have discretion and should follow principles instead of rules, even in “hard cases”.…

    • 910 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It managed, however, to retain some flexibility, and ran parallel to the common law with equal legal standing until the Earl of Oxford’s case, where it was declared by King James that principles of Equity should take precedence. This was codified by the Judicature Act 1873 (UK) which combined the historically separate courts of common law and Equity for a more coherent judicial…

    • 1208 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays