The Judicial Precedent Doctrine - Essay Example

In a judicial case, it is a principle that a court may apply in deciding ensuing cases with similar details or facts. (Tufal 2012) states that the basis of the legal precedent doctrine is the stare decisis principle, that is, standing by earlier decisions/verdicts. Binding precedents and persuasive precedents are the two categories of judicial precedents where the former is a case that is certain; a court has to keep an eye on. A persuasive precedent may be applied by a court but is not absolutely binding. A binding precedent is based on the ratio decidendi. Ratio decidendi (a law fact that forms the foundation on which a decision lies), is crucial for a judge’s decision while obiter dictum, a judge’s speculation of what his/her decision would have been if the case facts had been different,  is not.

The stare decisis principle dictates that once a fact of law has been decided on a particular case, that law must be applied in all forthcoming cases comprising the same substantial facts so as to guarantee confidence and fairness within the system (Mozammel 2011). A good example is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 where the Supreme Court took it that an industrialist is indebted to the consumer of the product. This established a binding precedent which was followed in [1962] AC 220 where the Supreme Court held that a crime of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed.

The judicial precedent is such that all courts rely on the judgments of the superior courts and all courts are bound by previous decisions of their own court. Persuasive precedents though not binding, may be considered. For instance, in R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412, the House of Lords considered and followed the obiter dicta from R v Howe & Bannister after they held that the defense of duress was not applicable to attempted murder. In some instances, the persuasive precedents from the Privy Council may be binding like in the Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] 3 WLR 29 cases where the defense of provocation in criminal law was functional. However, in R v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 3 WLR 654 case, not only was the defense of provocation considered but also decided against it. Without a doubt, a judge has to abide by a precedent set by an equal or higher court but the Supreme Court does not have to abide by its own precedents.

In some instances, the judicial precedent did not apply in court decisions especially with changes in economic and social status. In developing the Common Law in line with these changes, the Practice Statement was introduced by Lord Gardiner LC in 1966. It states that the Supreme Court is allowed to move off from its own former decision/verdict only when it “appears precise to act like so”. For instance, in 2002 in Hall v Simon, the Lords reversed the 1966 decision in Rondel v. Worsley. There was an extensive agreement that the newfound freedom was to be carefully applied. In (Knuller v. DPP) the Supreme Court was requested to exercise authority in the Shaw v DPP case, the ladies directory case, and they declined. Lord Reid noted that it was the parliament’s mandate to change any rule of law. 

In the British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] case, the Supreme Court also departed from their previous decision in the Addie v. Dumbreck  [1929] case and upheld that the railway company owed a common humanity's duty to the trespassers. On appeal, a higher court may depart from a decision by a lower court, for instance, the Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] case where the House of Lords came up with the Fraser Guidelines to determine a child’s capability of giving consent to a doctor for the prescription of contraceptives since there was no statutory inhibition on the same. Some cases may be significantly different such that previous decisions are no longer binding, for instance, the Court of Appeal distinguished Merritt v Merritt [1970] from Balfour v Balfour [1919] on the fact that though the spouses were separated, they intended to be bound by their signed agreement.

The judicial precedent doctrine has several advantages, these are, certainty in the law, uniformity in the law, flexibility, practicality in the nation and detail. According to (Gerhardt 2008), we should all have access to justice and the courts, hence with precedents fairness is promoted.  The certainty and ability to predict outcomes promote fairness in the law because the courts will be rationally certain on the application of the law in individual cases and that no matter where the case is heard, the defendants can expect to be treated fairly. Judicial precedents are also detailed (Duxbury 2008) and hence there are plenty of case laws that can be referred to by the judges.

Similar cases are also treated in a similar manner and the presence of a Supreme Court, the final appellate in crucial decisions promotes the uniformity of law by ensuring that lower court judges are following the law. The mandate of maintaining a balance between and stability and flexibility is delegated to judges. Judicial precedent doctrine undoes openings for the judges, especially in the superior courts in the court hierarchy who can change a system and adapt to new situations. All these give the precedent structure a feeling of righteousness and then make it acceptable to the general public.