Judicial Precedent (Q1)

Front 1

Ratio Decidendi - Definition

Back 1

The judge's reason for the decision or the legal principles applied to the case and it is this part that becomes the binding precedent for future similar cases, which must be followed.

Front 2

Ratio Decidendi - Donoghue v Stevenson

Back 2

C became unwell after her drink contained a decomposing snail; she was able to claim against the manufacturer, which has never been seen before. The reason for the decision was that a manufacturer owed a duty to anyone closely and directly affected by what they did or did not do in relation to their product (the neighbour principle).

Front 3

Ratio Decidendi - Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Back 3

This followed Donoghue V Stevenson where C was able to claim against D after contracting dermatitis from the clothes made by D.

Front 4

Ratio Decidendi - Shaw v DPP

Back 4

D was guilty of publishing a directory of prostitutes; the reason for the decision was that it corrupted public morals.

Front 5

Ratio Decidendi - Knuller v DPP

Back 5

This followed Shaw - D was guilty of the same offence after they allowed adverts for men to meet other men for sex.

Front 6

Orbiter dicta - Definition

Back 6

Is the other words said by the judge, forming persuasive precedent. This means for future similar cases, this only needs to be considered. It is often something a judge says to help explain his decision.

Front 7

Orbiter dicta - Hill v Baxter

Back 7

The hypothetical example of a swarm of bees was used to explain when the defence of automatism could be used.

Front 8

Orbiter dicta - Howe

Back 8

The OD was that duress should not be available as a defence for attempted murder.

Front 9

Orbiter dicta - Gotts

Back 9

This considered the OD from Howe; it was decided that duress was not available for attempted murder.

Front 10

Law Reporting - importance

Back 10

The principle of stare decisis can only operate if there are accurate reports of the court's decisions - in order to follow past decisions, there must be an accurate record of them and the reasoning behind them so that judges can decide whether or not to apply the same reasoning.

Front 11

Law Reporting - Past

Back 11

Law Reporting has existed since the 13th century but often reports were too brief or inaccurate. Cases were reported by individuals who made a business out of selling reports to lawyers; their detail and accuracy varied greatly.

Front 12

Law Reporting - Now

Back 12

In 1865 the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting was established; this is conforlled by the courts and is written by specialist lawyers. Without this, judicial Precedent would not have been able to develop as it has. The council exists today alongside other reports e.g. The All England law reports and Weekly Law Reports. Newspapers and journals also report cases e.g. the Times. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal publish reports online. There are also subscription sites such as WestLaw and LexisNexis.

Front 13

Law Reporting - Content

Back 13

Law reports consist of the case name, court, judge, summary, headnotes, statement of decision and references.

Front 14

Hierarchy - Definition

Back 14

Judicial Precedent operates within a court hierarchy so the courts at the top bond all those below. The criminal court hierarchy is as follows: Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown Court, Magistrates Court.

Front 15

Hierarchy - Supreme Court

Back 15

Sets binding precedent on points of law of great importance which all courts must below must follow - therefor it binds all courts including the Court of Appeal. It also generally binds itself but can depart from past precedent where it appears right to do so using the Practice Statement 1966.

Front 16

Hierarchy - Supreme Court cases

Back 16

R v G & R - SC used PS to depart from Caldwell and abolish objective recklessness.

Knuller v DPP - SC refuse to depart from Shaw.

Front 17

Hierarchy - The Court of Appeal

Back 17

The CoA is below the SC and therefore must follow all their decisions. The CoA sets binding precedents, which all courts below must follow. It binds itself in both the civil and criminal divisions unless Young V Bristol Aeroplane applies, or - for criminal cases only - as in Taylor and Gould, the law has been misapplied or misunderstood.

Front 18

Hierarchy - Other courts

Back 18

The High Court is bound by the SC and the CoA. It does not hind itself although it tends to follow its own decisions. The Crown Court and Magistrates Court are bound by all higher courts and do not make binding decisions.