Judicial Precedent

Judicial precedent is a key source of English law, ensuring consistency and fairness in legal decisions. It refers to the practice of judges following decisions made in previous cases when deciding new cases with similar facts.

Doctrine of Precedent: Stare Decisis, Ratio Decidendi, Obiter Dicta

• Stare Decisis: Latin for "to stand by things decided". It means courts follow previous decisions to maintain stability and predictability in the law.
• Ratio Decidendi: The legal reasoning or principle behind a decision. This forms the binding part of a judgment and must be followed by lower courts.
• Obiter Dicta: Comments made by judges that are not essential to the decision. These remarks are persuasive but not binding.

Hierarchy of the Courts: Civil and Criminal, Supreme Court

The court hierarchy is essential to precedent. Higher courts bind lower courts, ensuring that decisions are consistent across the judicial system.

• Supreme Court: The highest court in the UK. Its decisions are binding on all other courts.
• Court of Appeal: Second highest. Divided into Civil and Criminal divisions; binds lower courts but may be bound by the Supreme Court.
• High Court: Binds lower courts, but follows decisions from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
• Crown Court, County Court, Magistrates’ Court: Generally bound by decisions from higher courts.

Both civil and criminal hierarchies are relevant to stare decisis, as the binding nature of precedent depends on the position of the court within the hierarchy.

Types of Precedent: Binding, Persuasive, Original

• Binding Precedent: Must be followed by lower courts in future similar cases. Comes from higher courts.
• Persuasive Precedent: Not obligatory, but may influence decisions. Includes obiter dicta, decisions from lower courts, or courts in other jurisdictions.
• Original Precedent: Created when there is no existing precedent. Judges develop new legal principles for novel cases.

Methods: Overruling, Reversing, Distinguishing

• Overruling: A higher court decides that a previous decision by a lower court was wrong, setting a new precedent.
• Reversing: A higher court changes the decision of a lower court in the same case on appeal.
• Distinguishing: A court finds material differences between the facts of the current case and a previous one, so it does not follow the earlier precedent.

Exceptions to Stare Decisis

• Supreme Court Practice Directions 3 & 4: The Supreme Court may depart from its own previous decisions when it considers it right to do so, allowing flexibility in the law.
• Court of Appeal (Young v Bristol Aeroplane [1944]): The Court of Appeal can avoid following its own earlier decisions in certain circumstances:
• Conflicting decisions
• Supreme Court decision overrides
• Decision made per incuriam (carelessly or by mistake)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Precedent

Case Examples: Illustrating Precedent and Judicial Methods

• Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]: Established the principle of duty of care, creating an original precedent.
• R v R [1991]: Overruled earlier precedent, recognising marital rape as a criminal offence.
• Young v Bristol Aeroplane [1944]: Set out exceptions for the Court of Appeal to avoid following its own decisions.
• Balfour v Balfour [1919] and Merritt v Merritt [1970]: Distinguishing used to determine whether agreements between spouses are legally binding.

Summary and Key Revision Points

• Judicial precedent relies on the doctrine of stare decisis, ratio decidendi, and obiter dicta.
• The hierarchy of courts determines which precedents are binding.
• Types of precedent include binding, persuasive, and original.
• Methods for dealing with precedent are overruling, reversing, and distinguishing.
• Exceptions exist for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
• Precedent has both strengths and weaknesses, illustrated by key cases.