Judicial Precedent Overview

Judicial Precedent

• Judges must follow decisions made in courts higher in the hierarchy.
• The principle of stare decisis means "to stand by decisions" and not disturb settled law.
• Established during the reign of William the Conqueror.
• Common law evolved by 1250.
• Purpose of judicial precedent:
  • Prevent arbitrary or biased decisions
  • Apply the law fairly to similar cases
  • Provides certainty for litigants
  • Enables predictable development of the law

Operation of Judicial Precedent

• Decisions from higher courts are recorded in law reports.
• Law reports contain judgments and reasoning along with case facts.
• Ratio decidendi: The legal reasoning behind the decision. Forms binding precedent.
• Obiter dicta: Statements "said in passing" that are not binding but can be persuasive.
• New cases involving novel facts require courts to create new common law principles.

Ratio Decidendi

• Found in majority judgments.
• Must be followed by lower courts with similar facts.
• Typically followed by courts hearing cases with similar facts.
• Example: Interfoto v Stiletto: The ratio is that the plaintiff failed to draw attention to the unreasonable clause in a clear and fair way.

Obiter Dicta

• Found in majority and minority judgments.
• Not binding but persuasive.
• Distinguishing between ratio and obiter can be challenging until another court applies the decision.

Courts and Precedent

• Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords): Decisions bind all lower courts.
  • Practice Statement (1966): allows the Supreme Court to depart from previous decisions in exceptional circumstances.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division):
  • Bound by decisions of the Supreme Court.
  • Binds lower courts and is bound by its own previous decisions.
  • Where conflicting decisions exist, the Court of Appeal favors the most recent decision.
  • Decisions per incruriam (made due to oversight) are rare and primarily occur when the Court of Appeal is likely the final resort.
  • Exceptions to binding precedent: Young's case (1943) and per incruriam.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division):
  • Bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
  • Binds lower criminal courts and is bound by its own previous decisions.
  • Exceptions to binding precedent: Young's case, per incruriam, and R v Taylor (1950).
• High Court (First Instance):
  • Bound by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
  • While not strictly bound by its own previous decisions, it generally follows them.
  • Favors later conflicting decisions if they were made with full consideration of the earlier case.
  • Binds all lower courts.
• High Court Divisional Courts (Supervisory): Bound by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and not bound by previous decisions of divisional courts.
• High Court Divisional Courts (Appellate): Bound by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, with exceptions in Young's case.
• Lower Courts (Crown, County, and Magistrates): Bound by all higher courts.
• Judicial Committee of the Privy Council:
  • Sits outside the UK court system.
  • Not strictly binding on itself or other courts, but decisions are highly persuasive due to its overlap in personnel and venue with the Supreme Court.

Persuasive Precedent

• Judges considering precedent may look to sources that are not strictly binding (Privy Council, European Court of Human Rights, obiter dicta, dissenting judgments).

Using Precedent

• Follow: Apply existing precedent to cases with sufficiently similar facts. (Example: Interfoto v Stiletto followed Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking).
• Distinguish: Recognize precedent is correct but don't apply it because the facts are too different. (Example: Holwell Securities v Hughes distinguished from Henthorn v Fraser).
• Overrule: Decide a previous case was wrongly decided. (Example: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board overruled Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital).

Explore the concept of judicial precedent, including the principles of stare decisis and the roles of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Understand how higher court decisions influence the development of the law and the importance of consistency in legal rulings.