The advantages and drawbacks of the cortege of

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages in the doctrine of precedent. The doctrine of precedent means that judges send back to previous decisions to help them decide related cases where the law and facts are likewise.

Top of Form

Bottom level of Contact form

Discuss the huge benefits and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent. Judicial precedent problems itself together with the influence and value of past decisions of case law and prior legal experience. The doctrine of precedent means that judges refer back to prior decisions to help them decide similar cases in which the law and facts are alike. A fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of judicial preceding rests, is that a structure of courts is needed if it is to operate. The concept of stare decisis, meaning to stand by what has been determined, forms the foundation of the cortège of judicial precedent. The idea is that just like cases must be treated equally for the sake of conviction and consistency which, it truly is argued, causes fairness.

The effect of this is that, ordinarily, the legal thinking on a stage of legislation made in a youthful case must be followed. If perhaps all courts, regardless of their status or seniority, were able to set precedent, the cortège of contencioso precedent would be a rubbish mainly because it would be practically impossible to determine which precedent had taken precedence!

The doctrine of judicial precedent has overcome this by requirement that all courts are strictly bound to follow decisions made by the courts above them in the hierarchy. Moreover appellate legal courts are normally destined by their own past decisions. However , you will discover advantages and disadvantages.

Any discussion of the benefits is likely to are the point that the doctrine gives certainty in the law. What this means is the legal profession may give more helpful advice regarding the regulation to their consumers, including tips as to the value of the case and, just as significantly, advice about the outcome. This is certainly essential since issues of costs are likely to be involved and any issue of whether to keep with a courtroom action may have to be well-balanced with the likelihood of success and the probable costsinvolved. There is a saying anyone can begin proceedings but , once started, it is not necessarily as easy to get an end to them. This is due to, whilst beginning proceedings can be in your hands, ending these people may entail other get-togethers.

The règle of precedent therefore is great for questions of predictability while judicial preceding is rigidly followed. This certainty contributes to consistency and fairness in that like circumstances are addressed in a similar way. This kind of fairness is very important as there is a principle that individuals should all can access justice and the courts. This kind of principle can be made more challenging to achieve whether it was the case that there have been inequalities and there was a single law pertaining to the rich and one for the poor. Mr Proper rights Darling M was reported as stating “The rules, like the pub, is ready to accept all. Lord Justice Matthew elaborated by simply saying “In England proper rights is ready to accept all, just like the Ritz related to the fact that you may be able to enter the Ritz nevertheless, you would need money to make full use of the service generally there. In recent times an independent judiciary is viewed as an essential but separate arm of the express and no much less important than the executive a part of government as well as the legislature.

There are a few limited ways in which judges may possibly avoid preceding and these include distinguishing. Differentiating may be used by a judge if she or he decides which the material facts are sufficiently different from the earlier circumstance which would otherwise have set a precedent to get the present circumstance to follow.

The facts used to separate the two instances must be relevant and material to the legal principles that can determine the end result of the case ” trivial or perhaps minor distinctions will not be all you need. Unless the judge can draw this sort of a differentiation he would end up being bound to stick to the previous case even if he / she did not believe the legal reasoning. The concept of judicial preceding is totally adhered to.

Sometimes the practice of differentiating is rebuked as it leads to ‘hair splitting’ or ‘illogical’ differences, and therefore it is hard to see anyreal reason for not pursuing the previous precedent thus making the law become uncertain and undermining the primary reason behind creating a system dependant on past legislativo decisions.

You will find two instances which are often offered by way of representation of how distinguishing works. The cases happen to be Balfour sixth is v Balfour (1919) andMerritt v Merritt (1971). In equally cases a wife made a declare against her husband for breach of contract.

In Balfour sixth is v Balfour the husband went abroad to function and his wife was unable to go with him, he decided orally to send her 30 a month right up until she surely could join him. The relationship broke down and the repayments ceased. The wife attempted to get the agreement enforced but the claim failed as it was made the decision that there was clearly no intention to create legal relations (one of the conditions one would normally expect in order to find that a lawfully binding contract existed). The arrangement was one which used to be a household arrangement between a hubby and a wife.

Inside the later case the claim succeeded. The court in the case of Merritt v Merritt were able to separate that there have been material differences in the facts by those of Balfour v Balfour. The husband got agreed to pay out 40 monthly maintenance, the wife was to use this to pay the mortgage and, once the home loan was repaid, the house was going to be transmitted from joint names to the wife’s identity. Although this kind of had been crafted down and the agreement agreed upon, the husband probably would not transfer the property when the mortgage was paid out.

The differences had been that inside the Merritt case the celebrations were currently separated and so the relationship between one loved one and one more could be viewed to be several and more faraway. This might clarify why the parties chose to put the agreement in writing, again this was not the truth in Balfour and recommended an objective to put the arrangement on the more formal footing.

Therefore in this case your spouse had to transfer the house towards the wife. Several mightalso argue that over the time passed between the cases, society’s frame of mind towards the subject matter of relationship breakdown may have improved and that the court’s decision in Merritt merely needed to be more realistic and reflect the parties’ ought to protect themselves.

Overruling is a sure way of staying away from precedent. Overruling a previous preceding arises in which a court makes a decision, in a afterwards case, the legal judgment or thinking in an earlier case was not correctly used or no much longer appropriate, the court is really saying that the sooner decision should not now be used and the circumstance is no longer considered to be good regulation. Illustrations of when overruling may take place are:

1 . When a higher court overrules a decision of a lower court in an earlier case electronic. g. the Supreme Court overruling your decision of the Courtroom of Charm in an earlier case;

2 . When the European The courtroom of Proper rights decides to overrule a previous decision which it has been created by not following a decision;

3. If the Supreme Court decides to exercise the discretion and declare the own previous decisions being no longer regulation and overrules it. The cases of Pepper versus Hart (1993) and Davis v Manley (1979) offer a good sort of the theory of overruling by the Property of Lords using its authority under the Practice Statement 1966.

In Self defense v Hart the House of Lords made a decision that Hansard (the established record of of precisely what is said in Parliament) could be admitted in evidence prior to the court when ever trying to decide what was designed by particular words within a statute. This meant that the earlier decision ofDavis v Johnson to the impact that Hansard could not always be consulted not anymore represented legislation and was overruled.

There is also a reluctance to overrule outdated decisions which may be since overruling functions retrospectively, which means that the basic principle of law being overruled is placed never to had been law. This may also have the effect of criminalising previously lawful behavior.

As can be observed there is a few room pertaining to flexibility but also in reality these kinds of cases happen to be exceptional and opportunities will be effectively limited to the Court of Appeal and the Best Court keeping in mind their situation in the courtroom hierarchy.

It is said that the règle of preceding saves time. This is because the law can be found in important cases which usually set precedent and that these kinds of decisions are usually found in the decisions of the senior legal courts in the hierarchy. There will be endless similar circumstance dealing with identical points of legislation and materials facts. It might be tempting for lawyers to spend time and effort researching this sort of cases had been it not intended for the doctrine of precedent. The doctrine means that in place it is only the sooner decisions with the senior appellant courts that are high enough in the hierarchy to stand the test of time and set a precedent. You will have numerous circumstances which do not established a precedent. So the cortège is said in order to save time as the law can be found in the cases which arranged precedent not really the numerous other cases.

Although time conserving does happen the system is complex and frequently the courts feel that necessary to help remind themselves about how the law within a specific place has developed over a period of time. This might be justified for the basis that it leads to a much better understanding of legislation amongst the judiciary and the legal profession yet such thorough considerations happen to be time consuming and expensive since it consumes the court’s time. This may be particularly notable in difficult parts of the law and in situations where judiciary try to draw attention to matters which they feel need the attention of Parliament and are best left to Parliament like the criminal age of responsibility.

In (a minor) v DPP(1996), the House reported the particularité and issues raised by the rebuttable prevalent law supposition that a child between the ages of 12 and 14 is not capable of committing against the law. Despite a suggestion that the Residence had a few sympathy to get the fights for change, the House refused to eliminate the presumption and publicly stated that they called upon Legislative house to act on the matter. The situation is helpful for the reason that Lord Lowry gavesome regarded as guidelines concerning when it could be appropriate to engage in legislativo law-making. Lord Lowry, whom gave the key judgement, stated it was coming back a much- needed change at an undoubted problem. “This is a typical case for parliamentary investigation, deliberation and guidelines, . Lord Lowry was perhaps right to be cautious even as we now know the dimensions of the age of felony responsibility remains to be the subject of considerable debate even today.

There are a number of disadvantages and these include the assertion the fact that system is too rigid. As a result leads to the criticism the fact that law is too slow to produce and does not keep pace with social modify and advancements in world. There are strong arguments that the law will need to meet the needs of the society that serves and that problems happen if it does not. If the legislation does not grow and develop then you have the possibility that sections of world may think that they are miserable of essential rights of redress.

In British Railways Board versus Herrington (1972), the House of Lords overruled, or at least, altered, Robert Addie & Kids (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck (1929). In Addie, the home of Lords had organised that an occupier of premises was just liable to a trespassing kid who was injured by the occupier intentionally or recklessly. In Herrington, all their Lordships organised that a even more responsible procedure was suitable in the improved social conditions since 1929. The House advanced the test of ‘common humanity’ which involved the question of whether the occupier has done everything that a gentle person might have done to safeguard the safety from the trespasser. The House of Lords eventually required the opportunity in 1972 to use their powers under the Practice Assertion issued in 1966 to create about a change in the law but some would argue that such alter come about also slowly while the courts seem to choose to notion of certainty over individual hardship at times.

It can be seen the fact that law is usually slow to change under the règle of preceding. This in turn may result in people thinking that there is small that they can carry out because it seems just too difficult to challenge and result in change. The doctrine would not promote change. This was obviously illustrated in R sixth is v R (1991), the House of Lords removed altogether a husband’s two hundred fifity year old immunity from criminal liability to get raping his wife. The House had taken the view the fact that law necessary to reflect society’s expectations, and thought that only proper that it had taken the opportunity to action. Lord Keith spoke of “a prevalent law fiction which has turn into anachronistic and offensive. 

We can believe the doctrine of preceding is too intricate. In practice it really is thought to be too difficult to get an individual in order to research and discover the law themselves without alternative to specialist legal advice. On the other hand we are motivated, as good citizens, to understand and know the rules, but in practice this is very hard and time consuming. As a result what the law states is thought to be too tough and hard to get at for individuals to know, whereas it really is their legislation as it relates to them.

At the present time there is a great deal of concern over the issue of accessibility to the courts because of changes in the way legal help is given. It is dreaded that this may possibly result in more people behaving for themselves inside the courts which means that cases may take more time to handle or that some might not pursue their particular claims by any means.

If persons feel that what the law states is too sophisticated they may not really know their very own rights and, by if she is not fully educated, they may reduce financially or perhaps in other ways because of not ensuring that their entitlements and rights will be met. Culture then loses faith in the legal system and this gives sections of legislation into disrepute.

Cases can easily, as talked about earlier, be distinguished, enabling a assess to make a decision without the need to adhere to precedent, they can also be overruled. A new precedent can also be produced when ‘per incuriam’ takes place, this is when a previous decision have been made in error, either through negligence or by mistake. The judge in the new case can ignore the awful law and form a new precedent.

Reversing occurs in case the decision of the lower court is become a huge hit to a higher one particular, the higher the courtroom in the same case overturns the decision of the lower court docket and substitutes it together with his own. A persuasive precedent can only be applied where zero binding preceding applies and occurs in which a court will not have to stick to another courts’ decision nevertheless can choose to adhere to it in the event that they want. Using the source, where there is no previous decision to hole them, idol judges may make a great ‘original precedent’, as in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). But the scope to avoid preceding is limited and there have been worries that specific, for example , causes ‘hair splitting’ as a result of endeavors to try and show that the present case is materially different from a previous decision or precedent.

This may seem a minor subject but not necessarily so for the parties concerned, and if it occurs too often the practice generally seems to fly in the face of certainty and predictability in the law thus making it difficult for attorneys to advise clients about the probably outcome of cases.

This sort of issues more than distinguishing and hair breaking also appears to trivialise the parties arguments and their circumstance and distract attention away from merits with their claim. Get-togethers may possess invested a whole lot a of time and profit pursuing their claim only to find the strength of their very own case undermined by initiatives to show that their case is in some manner different as well as the law will not provide them with an answer.

You may also want to consider the following: benefits and drawbacks of decreases agreement

1

Tweet

Related essay