Judicial Precedent 12 Markers

studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
get a hint
hint

Creates uncertainty

1 / 7

Tags and Description

8 Terms

1

Creates uncertainty

  • ‘Stare decisis’ means the same decision will be made by lower courts and higher courts don’t want to overrule precedent.

  • Jones v SoSSS - refused to overrule Re Dowling.

  • Lawyers, judges and defendants can effectively prepare for cases.

  • COUNTER - lead to rigidity.

New cards
2

Rigid

  • Decisions don’t change as judges make the same decisions as higher courts.

  • Jones v SoSSS - decision in Re Dowling was wrong but kept it anyway for certainty.

  • Bad and outdated law will not be changed quickly enough.

  • COUNTER - creates certainty.

New cards
3

Flexible

  • Ways of avoiding precedent, as higher courts can overrule and any court can distinguish.

  • R v Shivpuri - overruled Anderton v Ryan as there was serious error.

  • Bad decisions are avoided and the law stays updated.

  • COUNTER - created uncertainty.

New cards
4

Uncertainty

  • Avoiding precedent made it hard to make decisions in the future.

  • Merritt v Merritt - distinguished Balfour v Balfour on marital agreements.

  • Hard to predict the outcome, having a negative effect on lawyers, judges and defendants.

  • COUNTER - help avoid injustices.

New cards
5

Respond to real life situations

  • Precedent is based on case law and real life situations.

  • R v R - marital rape made a crime.

  • Law can be made and changed in response to real events and updated with society.

  • COUNTER - complex.

New cards
6

Complex

  • ½ million precedents and more are getting created through distinguishing.

  • Re J - could not figure out what the ratio was.

  • Defeats the point of precedent.

  • COUNTER - respond quickly to real life situations.

New cards
7

Judicial creativity

  • Existing law doesn’t apply the current facts it can be distinguished and original precedent allows judges to create a law where there is no previous law.

  • R v R - Parliament had no guidance about marital rape, so judges made it illegal.

  • Leads to justice and saves Parliament’s time.

  • COUNTER - goes against the separation of powers.

New cards
8

Goes against separation of powers

  • Allows judges to make and change laws when only Parliament should have this power.

  • R v R - judges chose to make marital rape illegal.

  • Judges are not democratically elected and may not reflect Parliament/society’s wishes.

  • COUNTER - save Parliament’s time.

New cards

Explore top notes

note Note
studied byStudied by 13 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 8 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 5 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 17 people
Updated ... ago
4.5 Stars(2)
note Note
studied byStudied by 6 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 11 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(2)
note Note
studied byStudied by 4 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 18 people
Updated ... ago
4.5 Stars(2)

Explore top flashcards

flashcards Flashcard187 terms
studied byStudied by 24 people
Updated ... ago
4.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard59 terms
studied byStudied by 16 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard65 terms
studied byStudied by 22 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard53 terms
studied byStudied by 26 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard105 terms
studied byStudied by 13 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard53 terms
studied byStudied by 39 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard103 terms
studied byStudied by 31 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard44 terms
studied byStudied by 45 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)