click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Law Making precedent
Judicial Precedent
Question | Answer |
---|---|
What is the point of judicial precedent? | Consistency (but less flexibility) |
R v R | Courts changed the law on marital rape |
What is the ratio of a precedent? | Reason for the decision/key rule of the case |
What is obiter dicta? | Other things said by the judge, broadening the precedent (persuasive - not binding) |
What is dissenting? | When the minority of Judges disagree and outline their reasons e.g., RCN v DHSS |
What is persuasive precedent? | Precedent that is non-binding but recommended to be used |
Howe | Ratio: Duress can't be used as a defence for murder (or attempted murder - Obiter Dicta) |
Gotts | Followed obiter in Howe & created binding precedent that duress can't be used as a defence for Attempted Murder |
R v Davis | D can't be convicted of murder solely on evidence of anonymous witnesses -> Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act |
What is the importance of law reports to precedent? | Outlines ratios helping lawyers preventing inconsistency |
London Street Tramways v London County Council | Unless glaring error, said HL couldn't reverse previous decisions - parliaments job |
What is the Practice Statement 1966 | Allows Supreme Court to overule previous decisions |
Herrington v BRB | Overruled Addie v Dumbreck making use of the Practice Statement 1966 |
Shivpuri | Overruled Anderton v Ryan making use of the Practice Statement 1966 |
Young v Bristol Aeroplane | outlines exceptions to Court of Appeal following SC/HL and itself. Confirmed by HL in Davis v Johnson |
When may the Court of Appeal not follow SC/HL and itself? | previous CA decision conflicts, or overruled by HL/SC, or made per incuriam (glaring error) - Young v Bristol Aeroplane |
What precedent does the judicial committee of the privy council produce? | Persuasive, unless court states it will be binding |
How may a precedent be avoided? | FORD |
Balfour v Balfour | Merritt distinguished from this: Presumption upheld - no intent to be legally binding |
Merritt v Merritt | Distinguished from Balfour v Balfour: Seperated so doesn't follow presumption - intent |
Ivey v Genting Casinos (*dust?) | Civil case changed civil and criminal meaning of "dishonesty". Confirmed by Barton and Booth overulling Ghosh test |