Judicial Precedent: The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent (Copy)
Judicial Precedent: The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent
Case Precedents & Statutes Sheet (AS Level Law – England and Wales)
Core Definition and Constitutional Basis
| Authority | Court / Source | Principle Established | Exam Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doctrine of Stare Decisis | Common law principle | Like cases should be decided alike | Core definition |
| London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898) | House of Lords | House of Lords bound by its own decisions (historic) | Certainty |
| Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) 1966 | House of Lords | Supreme Court may depart from its own precedents | Flexibility |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Meaning of Judicial Precedent
- Judicial precedent:
- Decisions made by judges in earlier cases
- Binding on courts in later cases with similar facts
- Operates through:
- Hierarchy of courts
- Ratio decidendi
- Obiter dicta
Court Hierarchy and Binding Force
Vertical Binding Precedent
| Higher Court | Binds | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | All lower courts | Practice Statement 1966 |
| Court of Appeal | High Court, Crown Court, County Courts | Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944) |
| High Court | Crown Court, County Courts | Persuasive/limited binding |
| Crown Court | Magistrates’ Courts | Persuasive only |
Horizontal Binding Precedent
| Court | Binding Position | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Not bound by own decisions | Practice Statement 1966 |
| Court of Appeal | Generally bound by own decisions | Young v Bristol Aeroplane |
| High Court | Usually not bound | Persuasive flexibility |
Ratio Decidendi — Binding Part of a Case
Legal Meaning
- The legal principle necessary for the decision
- Binding on future cases
Key Authorities
| Case | Court | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) | House of Lords | Duty of care principle | Ratio example |
| R v Blaue (1975) | Court of Appeal | Thin skull rule | Criminal ratio |
| Arthur J S Hall v Simons (2002) | House of Lords | Removal of barristers’ immunity | Ratio |
Obiter Dicta — Persuasive Statements
Legal Meaning
- Comments not essential to the decision
- Not binding but persuasive
Key Authorities
| Case | Court | Obiter Influence | Exam Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v Howe (1987) | House of Lords | Duress unavailable for murder | Later binding |
| R v Gotts (1992) | House of Lords | Obiter in Howe became binding | Development |
| Shaw v DPP (1962) | House of Lords | Judicial law-making concerns | Persuasive dicta |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Following Precedent
| Situation | Authority | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Same material facts | Stare decisis | Must follow |
| Lower court decision | Hierarchy | Binding |
| Supreme Court decision | Absolute | Binding |
- Ensures:
- Certainty
- Predictability
- Fairness
Avoiding Precedent
Distinguishing
| Case | Court | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balfour v Balfour (1919) | Court of Appeal | Domestic agreements not binding | Distinguished |
| Merritt v Merritt (1970) | Court of Appeal | Agreements after separation enforceable | Successful distinction |
- Facts sufficiently different → precedent not binding
Overruling
| Case | Court | Principle | Exam Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v Shivpuri (1986) | House of Lords | Overruled Anderton v Ryan | Correcting error |
| Pepper v Hart (1993) | House of Lords | Overruled Davis v Johnson | Hansard allowed |
- Higher court overturns legal principle of lower court or itself
Reversing
| Case | Court | Principle | Exam Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v Kingston (1994) | House of Lords | Reversal on appeal | Same case |
| R v Bentley (1998) | Court of Appeal | Conviction reversed | Appellate correction |
Exceptions to Binding Precedent
Court of Appeal Exceptions — Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944)
| Exception | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Conflicting CA decisions | May choose |
| Conflict with Supreme Court | Must follow Supreme Court |
| Decision per incuriam | Given in error |
Per Incuriam — Decision Given in Error
| Case | Court | Principle | Exam Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morelle v Wakeling (1955) | Court of Appeal | Ignored statute/authority | Per incuriam |
| Williams v Fawcett (1986) | Court of Appeal | Rare exception | Judicial caution |
Advantages of Judicial Precedent
| Advantage | Authority | Exam Point |
|---|---|---|
| Certainty | London Street Tramways | Predictable outcomes |
| Consistency | Stare decisis | Equality before law |
| Flexibility | Practice Statement 1966 | Law can develop |
| Practical detail | Case law | Real-life application |
Disadvantages of Judicial Precedent
| Disadvantage | Authority | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Rigidity | Young v Bristol Aeroplane | Inflexible |
| Complexity | Volume of cases | Hard to find ratio |
| Slow reform | Dependence on cases | Reactive law |
| Undemocratic | Shaw v DPP | Judges not elected |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Relationship with Parliamentary Supremacy
| Aspect | Authority | Position |
|---|---|---|
| Parliament | Supremacy | Can overrule precedent |
| Courts | Interpretation | Apply and develop law |
| Conflict | Statute vs case | Statute prevails |
Evaluation Authorities (High-Band Use)
| Issue | Authority | Evaluation Point |
|---|---|---|
| Certainty vs justice | Practice Statement 1966 | Balance |
| Error correction | Shivpuri | Flexibility |
| Judicial creativity | Shaw v DPP | Criticism |
| Hierarchy clarity | Young | Structure |
Ultra-Condensed Exam Recall Grid
| Concept | Authority | Memory Hook |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Stare decisis | Follow decisions |
| Ratio | Donoghue v Stevenson | Binding |
| Obiter | Howe → Gotts | Persuasive |
| CA exceptions | Young | Three rules |
| Supreme Court flexibility | Practice Statement 1966 | Depart if right |
| Distinguishing | Balfour/Merritt | Facts differ |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course