Operations of Judicial Precedent in the House of Lords and in the Court of Appeals - Essay Example

Understanding The Development and Operations of Judicial Precedent In the House of Lords and In the Court Of Appeals I. Introduction The law judicialprecedent otherwise referred to in legal parlance as “stare decisis” or to stand upon decisions has been used in the English Court for many years (see Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191). The governing principle of this law is that cases with more or less similar set of facts deserves a more or less the same decisions. Technically, the law on judicial precedent is a double edge sword. It has its own advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, courts would be better of without it since it will be free to decide the case at hand based on its merits and not on the merits of previously decided cases and on the other hand, the law of judicial precedent is important as part of the courts internal control mechanism. With the law judicial precedent, the courts are bound to follow what principles and interpretations of law have been previously set, thus whimsical and unfounded decisions can be avoided. Moreover, since there are now decided cases that may serve as basis in deciding the case at hand, we will have some ideas as to the possible outcome of the case. On the negative side, the existence of judicial precedent can hinder the delivery of justice. As in the case of R v Kansal (2002), the court considered itself as bound by its decision of the case of R v Lambert (2001) even if it knows that its decisions in that case is flawed. Situations like these presents big dilemma that could have some bearing on people’s perspective about the courts. Can the Court correct its flawed decisions even it is bound by the law of judicial precedent? Yes, the decisions of the Courts are not cast is stones and these decisions may be reversed, overruled or rejected under certain grounds. In the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944), the Court of Appeals said that it bound by its previous decision. Technically, the court is saying here that we have decided a case similar as this and unless there is a clear showing that the facts of case at bar contradicts that of the previously decided case, it has no choice but to follow the course of it previous decisions. The Court of Appeals in this case also provided three cases where it can overturn its previous decision and these conditions are as follows (1) where there is a conflict between two Court of Appeals decisions (2) where the decision is in conflict with the decisions made by the House of Lords and (3) where decision of the previous case is said to be given a per incuriam (a finding of want of care exist), the courts cannot decide the case at bar following the same decisions that has been found inadequate or flawed. Over the years, the reach of judicial precedent broadens. Every time a new case is decided in court, the court may elect to broaden the scope of the already existing doctrines. In effect, new judgments, to some degree have the potential to alter the face of an existing judicial precedent. However, judicial precedent should not be considered as a stand alone law. This means that the law on judicial precedent is something that is dependent on several factors. It is ever expanding and dynamic. In deciding cases using judicial precedent, the court is careful on stating the facts of the case, the laws which serve as grounds in deciding the case and then in the ratio decidendi or the legal reasoning of the case, the court now states the judgment of previous cases, thereby effectively invoking the law on judicial proceeding. Only when the facts of the case, the laws involved and the grounds for the deciding the case are properly laid shall judicial proceeding be considered as binding. In other words, judicial precedent merely reinforces the interpretation of the case and the laws behind the case. It does not it itself modify or create another law or policy. The law on judicial precedent has varying binding effects. Lower courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts while the higher courts are bound by their own decisions. Applications of prior case law often bring about arguments especially among judges. In cases like these, the higher Court may decide on the matter. The lower courts are them bound to follow the judicial precedent set by higher courts. Under English law, the application of judicial precedents may follow this hierarchy: the House of Lords may be bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals may be bound by the decisions of the High Court. However, this does not mean that the House of Lords and the higher courts cannot contradict its self when the situation calls for it. In case of Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) for instance, the House of Lords overruled its decision in the case of Anns v London Borough of Merton (1978). High Courts have been known to overturn the rulings they have made in previous cases and set new sets of judicial precedents. Likewise, high courts have the power to affirm and reaffirm the decision of the previous cases thereby perpetuating the judicial precedents that it has set. In the event where there are no decided cases similar to the case at bar, the court in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) said that the decision of the new case will set new judicial precedents may be considered as basis for deciding similar cases in the future. In the case of Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Docklands Development Corporation (1995), the court reiterated the ruling that where a point of law is a certain case has never been decided before, the judgment of that case will now serve as judicial proceeding for future cases. Moreover, in deciding the new case, the judge may use as basis decided cases by analogy. In other words, previous cases that have analogous circumstances may be used as basis for the new case at bar. Can judges of express opinions contrary to the set of judicial precedents? If the judge has some observations regarding the case at hand which contradicts the decision of a previous case with similar facts, the judge may issue an “obiter dictum” which expresses his or her contrary opinion. The “biter dictum” is not like the “ratio decidendi” of the case but it can be used to persuade the courts later on to consider the ideas expressed in the “obiter dictum”. Counsels often use the “obiter dictum” of the court as part of their arguments on a case and this practice has been well recognized by the courts. To give us a better perspective of how judicial precedent works in the different court levels, let us discuss the impact of judicial precedent at different levels. II. Decisions of The House of Lords                                                        Before the case of London Street Tramways v London Country Council (1898) was decided by the Court, the House of Lords did not consider itself as bound by its previous decisions. However, after the decision of the case of London Street Tramways v London Country Council (1898), the House of Lords unequivocally bound itself to its previous decisions. The rationale behind the decisions is that court decisions are meant to be infallible and its decisions should be consistent (London Street Tramways v London Country Council (1898). The decisions to stick to its previous rulings was considered as closed for discussions until the Parliament issued the Practice Statement of 1966 which allowed the House of Lords to follow English laws that meet the changing conditions of times. Eventually, the House of Lords used the Practice Statement of 1966 to divert from its previous rulings only as a last resort. Under the Practice Statement of 1966, the Courts were given the right to contradict its previous decisions to promote the best interest of justice. The first criminal case which overturned previously decided cases’ using the Practice Statement of 1966 was Anderton v Ryan (1985). This case overruled the decisions in the case of R v Shivpuri (1986). Many pundits were not impressed by the flip-flopping decisions of the House of Lords in these two cases especially when these cases were decided within just over year apart. Questions of the infallibility of the courts were raised. In the later case R v Kansal (2002), majority of the members of the House of Lords upheld the decision in the case of R v Lambert (2001) even though there have been findings that the case of Lambert has been wrongly decided. III. Court of Appeals Technically, the court of Appeals is bound by the decisions made by the House of Lords even it sees that the decisions of the House of Lords are flawed. The case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co ltd (1944) illustrates the influence of the decisions of the House of Lords over the Court of Appeals especially in deciding civil cases. According to this case, there are only three instances when the Court of Appeals can depart from the decisions of the House of Lords and these conditions are as follows: (1) where there is a conflict between two Court of Appeals decisions (2) where the decision is in conflict with the decisions made by the House of Lords and (3) where decision of the previous case is said to be given a per incuriam (a finding of want of care exist), the courts cannot decide the case at bar following the same decisions that has been found inadequate or flawed. In criminal cases however, the Court of Appeals is more lenient when it comes to following laws on judicial precedent. In the case of R v Taylor (1950), the Court of Appeals see it fit to reconsider the earlier decisions where there is a showing that the law involved has been misunderstood or misapplied in the case at bar. This decision of the Court of Appeals was reiterated in the case of R v Gould (1968). The rationale behind the more lenient application of the law is that the liberty of the person is at stake in criminal proceedings and wrongful application or interpretation of the law can result to unlawful deprivation of freedom (see R v Gould (1968). IV. Divisional Courts of the High Courts Divisional courts of High Courts generally follow the decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeals. One divisional Court may also follow the decisions of another Divisional Court. However, this does not mean that one Divisional Court is bound to follow the decisions of another Divisional Court. The rationale behind this principle is that Courts of the same status or standing cannot impose its decisions upon each other. However, normally, one divisional court adopts or follows the decisions of other divisional courts under the same circumstances set by the Court of Appeals (see Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944). Although the Divisional Courts may decide cases based on its findings, the Divisional Courts are bound to follow are the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the House of Lords. As in the case of Police Authority for Huddersfield v Watson (1947), the Court reiterated the need for the divisional courts to follow the decisions of the House of Lords. The decision of the court in the case of Police Authority for Huddersfield v Watson (1947) was later on affirmed in the case of Commissioner of Police v Stunt (2001) where the count so ruled cases with more or less the same circumstances are to be decided in the more or less the same manner. III. The High Courts The High Court is bound to follow the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the House of Lords but it is not bound by its own decisions. In Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries PLC (1984), it was decided that where two earlier decisions of the High Court are in conflict with each other, the High Court may consider following that decision which has been considered in deciding the later case. In other words, if the first case was considered in deciding the second case, the High Court may elect to adopt the decision laid down in the first case. Moreover, the High Courts also follow the principles laid down in the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co ltd (1944). The decisions of the high courts are binding on the lower courts. V. Advantages and Disadvantages: Impact of Judicial Precedent On Counsels and Their Clients The law on judicial precedent plays a big role in the practice of the legal profession. Counsel and their clients are directly affected by its implementation thus it is imperative that counsels explain to their clients the implications of this law. The counsel need to inform his or her clients that decisions of previous cases will have some bearing on the outcome of the case filed by the clients. He or she needs to outline the advantages and disadvantages of the law judicial precedent. For instance, he or she needs to explain to the clients that with this law, there is a possibility of appeals and judgment reversal for or against the clients. Appeals may cost the clients money and that elevating the case on appeal to higher courts may prolong the legal process. This means that the delivery of justice may be delayed. However, appeals may work in the favor of the clients in the sense that the elevation of to higher courts for review may afford the clients better chances of getting a positive result. Flawed judgments of the lower courts may be reversed on appeal. This means that the clients still get another chance of winning the case even if it has been decided against at the lower courts. On the other hand, since the courts are bound by its previous decisions, there is a possibility that flawed decisions will be reiterated. A clear example of flawed decisions that has been upheld is R v Lambert (2001). On the part of the counsel, the law on judicial precedent may work for or against him or her also. On the positive side, it will be easier for the counsel to argue his or her case in court since there are already concrete interpretations of the law outlined in previously decided cases. On the negative side, the existence of previously decided cases may jeopardize the case. Where there are many decided cases that run against the case filed by the counsel and his or her client, there is a big chance that the counsel and his or her client will lose the case. Fortunately, there are ways to get out of this type of situations by invoking the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co ltd (1944), R v Taylor (1950) and R v Gould (1968). These three cases provide clear exceptions to the law on judicial precedent. VI. Conclusion The application of the law of judicial precedent in the courts is a double edge sword. It can be viewed both at the positive and negative angle. On the positive side, following judicial precedents is a sign that the court is stable and affable. As the courts stand firm on its decisions on similar cases, it projects an image of stability and control. The fact that the courts have hierarchy allows for review of decided cases on appeal so there is a kind of check and balance in the decision making process. Higher courts review the decisions of the lower courts and lower courts are bound by the decisions of the lower court. In reviewing cases on appeal, higher courts also follow certain rules thus there is little room for making unfounded decisions at the higher courts. Where the higher courts see flaws in the decisions elevated to them for review, the high courts has the legal and moral obligation to reverse, overrule or amend the rulings in question based on certain guidelines. On the negative side, judicial proceeding may work against the legal system in the sense that it prolongs the delivery of justice. Series of appeals and reviews of the case at bar can take time. Moreover, the fact that some flawed decisions of the court end up being upheld on review does not bode well on the legal system. On the side of the counsels and clients, the existence of law on judicial precedent may work or against them. On the positive side, the law of judicial precedent may provide the client and the counsel basis for their arguments to win the case. The fact that judgments of the lower courts may be brought on appeal to higher courts also work well for the counsels and clients. On the negative side, the law of judicial precedent may pose an almost insurmountable challenge for some clients. When most of the previously decided cases are against the client, it may difficult for the client to win the case at bar. Series of appeals may also cost a lot of money on the part of the client. However, in the end, what really matters is that justice is served and that those who should enjoy the protection of the law are given what is due to them. The legal system may not be perfect but if it is followed properly, people may enjoy its protection to the fullest. References: 1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316, 2. Anderton v Ryan (1985) 2 All ER 335 3. Anns v London Borough of Merton (1978) A.C. 728 4. Colchester Estates (Cardiff) v Carlton Industries PLC (1984) 3 WLR 693 5. Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Docklands Development Corporation (1995) AC 665 6. London Street Tramways v London Country Council (1898) A. C. 375 7. Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) 2 All ER 908 8. Police Authority for Huddersfield v Watson [1947] KB 842, 848 9. Police Commissioner v Stunt (2001) Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 10. Practice Statement of 1966 11. R v Gould [1968] 2 QB at 68-69 12. R v Kansal (2002) AC 395, 419 13. R v Lambert (2001) [2001] UKHL 37 14. R v Shivpuri (1986) 2 All ER 334 15. R. v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368 (Court of Criminal Appeal) 246, 247, 250 16. Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191 17. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944) Read More