Supreme Court vs The Court of Appeals - Essay Example

? Compare the extent to which the Supreme Court and the court of appeals are bound by their own decisions and critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of their differing positions in relation to the doctrine of binding precedent. List of Case Laws Referred Andrews v Hopkinson Broome v Cassel Donoghue v Stevenson Gallie v Lee Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Havana Railway case Hulton v Jones Lewis v AG of Jamaica Ley v Hamilton R v Gotts R v Gould R v Howe & Bannister R v Parole Board R v Spencer R v Taylor Rookes v Barnard Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd Shaw v DPP Tiverton Estates v Wearwell Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd “BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT” English legal system has developed the judge-made law which is also known as stare decisis or the doctrine of binding precedent, which is one of the most basic and traditional features of the English legal system. As per the doctrine of judicial precedent, a verdict pronounced by a court in a case is obligating on the other inferior courts and also the same court which involves analogues legal issues. Thus, consistency within the law is both in practice and theory, to a maximum extent is preserved and can be regarded as one of the fundamental demands of the meaning of justice, which is covered by giving equal treatment of like cases, in like manner1. UK can be said to be the birth place of the legal concept namely judicial precedent or stare decisis or ratio decidendi. Now, judicial precedent is widely followed by the common law jurisdictions around the world. The judicial precedent concept is footed upon the rule that once a court has given its verdict in a given background, the analogous verdict should be arrived at in any future litigation where the facts of the cases are alike. The judicial precedent principle is based upon the concept that if a verdict was given by a superior court, then lower court is under obligation to follow it, whereas there is no obligation on the superior court to follow the decision given by a lower court. It is to be remembered that decision given by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson2 in 1932 as regards to “neighbour principle” which has become the reference case for the cases involving ‘negligence’ in the latter period3. A gullible consumer may under proper scenarios recoup damages for harm sustained by a defective product either it be car as held in Andrews v Hopkinson,4 or it may be an underwear as held in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills.5 Likewise , the verdict given in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd6 also became a precedent in subsequent cases where it was held that a company is a juristic person , has separate legal entity and a company is different from its members.7 In these cases, the courts have considered only the legal principle involved and not the particular facts of the earlier cases. Thus, the legal principle, which is known as the ratio decidendi is the crux portion of the judicial decision which is a binding precedent.8 An obiter dictum in judicial verdict deals with observation made by a judge in the course of litigation, which is not essential for the final verdict and hence is not regarded as a binding precedent. For instance, in R v Howe & Bannister9, it was held by the House of Lords that defence of duress could not be extended to murder crime and this has been regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case. Further, it was observed by the House of Lords, whether the defence should be made available to those accused who engaged in an attempt of murder and observed obiter dicta that the defence of duress should not be made available to the attempted murder also10. It is to be noted that obiter dicta is also referred by other names namely persuasive precedent, which refers to the legal principles observed by the judges which just offer some elucidation on the subject. Thus, persuasive precedents may also emanate from lower courts and also from the verdicts of other jurisdiction11. In R v Gotts12 , the House of Lords was of the view that justification under duress cannot be extended for attempted murder, and this is regarded as persuasive precedent or obiter dicta13. Since UK is the member of European Union , the decisions given by European Court of Justice (ECJ) is now binding as regards to the matters of community law , on all courts in UK up to the House of Lords (now Supreme Court). Binding Precedent by House of Lords or (present Supreme Court) of UK Within the pyramid of the court system in UK, there is a hierarchy of binding precedents as the verdicts given by the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) are obligating on all lower courts in UK including the Court of Appeal. However, the verdicts given by the Court of Appeal is not binding on the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) which are higher-ranking in this curial hierarchy. The verdict given by the Court of Appeal is obligating all the lower courts, including the county courts or the High Courts and also obligating on the Court of Appeals itself14. The verdict given by the Supreme Court (earlier House of Lords) will be binding upon all the courts in UK and even to the future verdicts of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court can deviate from its earlier verdict if it thinks fit to have a different verdict due to transforming social scenarios. The decisions of the Supreme Court (earlier House of Lords) will be binding upon the Court of Appeal and in some circumstances, by its earlier verdicts itself. The Court of Appeal verdict is binding upon all the lower courts in UK but not binding upon the Supreme Court15. The decisions given by the Supreme Court (earlier House of Lords) are binding on the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and criminal division Court of Appeal is bound by its own verdicts. As compared to Civil cases, the Criminal Division may deviate more liberally from its earlier verdicts as held in R v Taylor16 , if the law has been misinterpreted or misapplied, where a criminal appeal concerns with the query of the independence and liberty of a citizen, in such scenarios, a full appellate court is empowered to override its own earlier verdict17. In Shaw v DPP18 , the appellant was charged for plot to damage public morals under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for having published a directory of prostitutes, and it was the contention of the appellant that there was no existence of such offence of a plot to damage public morals subsisted. However, the appellant lost his case as the House of Lords had established a new punishable crime which became binding precedent for later cases19. Binding Precedents by the Court of Appeals in UK In “Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd”20, the Court of Appeal held that it is obligated not only its earlier decisions but also of those of co-ordinate jurisdictions with the following three exemptions viz. a) where there exists two incongruous verdicts, b) where an earlier verdict cannot stand before the verdict of the House of Lords, c) if an earlier verdict was awarded per incuriam21. In R v Parole Board22, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was of the view that where an individual freedom is at peril and where injustice might happen, the courts need not follow the principle of binding precedents. It is to be observed the same view was given by the Court of Appeal in the following cases also viz. R v Gould23 and R v Spencer24 also25. In Tiverton Estates v Wearwell26, the Court of Appeal did not adhere to its own earlier verdict since there existed contradictory principles. However, some critics have suggested that Court of Appeals should have the same liberty to deviate from its own earlier verdict as the House of Lords27. Advantages of Binding Legal Precedents The canon of binding precedent is offering advantages like legal precision, uniformity, clarity and certainty. In a powerful dissenting judgment, Lord Hoffman observed this in Lewis v AG of Jamaica28. In Gallie v Lee29 , Lord Russell declined to the view of the House of Lords that it is free to overrule its earlier decisions30. In Broome v Cassel31, it was observed that the priority should be accorded to certainty in the law as in legal issues, some magnitude of certainty is at least should be available, which is as precious as part of justice as excellence32. “Disadvantages of Binding Precedents” Location of legal principles could be found difficult due to the excessive volume of decided cases. There is an irrational, technical difference in the process of identifying precedent, which could pave to end excessive legalism and occasionally, may end in meaninglessness. In favour of maintaining the status quo, there is a danger of losing the beneficial legal transformation. Further, it is criticised that the doctrine of precedent stimulates inflexibility within the legal setup33. Whether the decisions of the House of Lords are binding on the Court of Appeals? In Broome v Cassell34 , it was held by the Court of Appeal unanimously that decision in Rookes v Barnard 35by House of Lords was wrong. In this case, judges in Court of Appeal viz. Lord Denning MR, Phillimore LJJ and Salmon were of the view that in Broome v Cassell36, the House of Lords was not binding on them as it had disregarded two earlier decisions by House of Lords viz. Ley v Hamilton and Hulton v Jones. In Schorsch Meir GmbH v Hennin37 , it was held by the Court of Appeal that a verdict by an English court could be given in a currency other than pound sterling whereas in Havana Railway case, the House of Lords had observed in the opposite38. To sum up, legal binding precedent offers legal precision, uniformity, clarity and certainty. Further, the Judicial precedent offers consistency within the law both in practice and theory, to a maximum extent is preserved and can be regarded as one of the fundamental demands of the meaning of justice, which is covered by giving equal treatment of like cases, in like manner. As regards to binding precedent, the courts have considered only the legal principle involved and not the particular facts of the earlier cases. Thus, the legal principle, which is known as the ratio decidendi is the crux portion of the judicial decision which is a binding precedent. In exceptional cases, the UK Supreme Court can deviate from its earlier verdict if it thinks fit to have a different verdict due to transforming social scenarios. As compared to Civil cases, the Criminal Division may deviate more liberally from its earlier verdicts as held in R v Taylor. In Shaw v DPP39, the House of Lords had established a new punishable crime which became binding precedent for later cases. In R v Parole Board40, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was of the view that where an individual freedom is at peril and where injustice might happen, the courts need not follow the principle of binding precedents. Bibliography Books Abbott K, Pendlebury N& Wardman K, Business Law (Cengage Learning 2007) Andrews N, The Modern Civil Process: Judicial and Alternative Forms and Dispute (Mohr Siebeck 2008) Eastman N, Adshead G & Fox S, Forensic Psychiatry (Oxford University Press 2012) Fordham M, Judicial Review Handbook (Hart 2001) Harpwood V, Modern Tort Law (Taylor & Francis 2008) Harris P, An Introduction to Law (Cambridge University Press 2007) Jacob J M, Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Ashgate Publishing Limited 2007) Justice of the Peace Reports, Justice of the Peace Reports, Volume 151 (the University of California 1987) Marsh, S.B. & Soulsby J, Business Law (Nelson Thornes 2002) Mothersole B & Ridley A, A –Level Law in Action (Cengage Learning 1999) Rose-Ma-Antoine, Commonwealth Caribbean Law and Legal Systems 2/e (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 2008) Thomas E W, The Judicial Process, Realism, Pragmatism, Practical Reasoning and Principles (Cambridge University Press 2005) Twining W & Miers D, How to Do Things with Rules (Cambridge University Press 2010) Whittingham R B, Preventing Corporate Accidents – An Ethical Approach (Routledge 2008) Zander M, The Law- Making Process (Cambridge University Press 2004) Journals Gilbert G, ’ The Criminal Responsibility of States ‘(1990) 39 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly McGregor H, ‘In Defence of Lord Delvin’ (1971) 34(5) The Modern Law Review 520 Schnelder R D. & Bloom H, ‘Interests of Some Mentally Ill Accused ‘(1995-1996) 38 Criminal Law Quarterly Read More