Judicial Precedent

The principles, rules and orders governing how judicial decisions create laws for future cases. When judges decide these cases, their decisions become precedents - authoritative examples that guide how simlar cases should be decided in the future.

Refers to the core principle that courts must follow decisions made by courts above them in the hierarchy. When the legal issue in a previous case matches the legal issue in a current case, the court hearing the current case should apply the same legal principle. This approach promotes fairness by treating similar cases consisently and provides certainty in the law.

A decision from a senior court that must be followed in future cases. For this system to function effectively, the courts are organised in a hierarchical structure, where higher courts bind lower courts. The hierarchical system ensures consistency and predictability. When a higher courts establishes a legal principle in its judgement, all lower courts must apply the same legal principle when facing similar cases. This creates a clear chain of authority within the legal system.

A decision that does not have to be followed by later courts, but which a judge may choose to follow. They carry considerable weight.

- Decisions from court that do not bind, such as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
- Decisions from courts lower in the hierarchy.
- Obiter dicta statements within judgements.

Courts such as the County Court, Crown Court and the Magistrates' Court do not create precedents because there are far too many cases going through them and they do not publish judgements that could be used as precedents.

Young v Bristol Aeroplane established the key principle that the Court of Appeal need not follow itself when:
-Previous decisions were made per incuriam.
- There are two conflicting decisions.
- Later conflicting Supreme Court decisions.

When the Supreme Court replaced the HoL in 2009, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transferred the HoL's power to the Supreme Court. The practice statement 1966 allows the Supreme Court to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so. Austin v Borough confirmed that this power has been transferred to it. The Supreme Court must explain why it does not follow its own decisions. This provides flexibility to correct previous errors or adapt the law to changing circumstances.

This principle requires that a decision in an earlier case will stand as guidance for all future cases with similar facts and legal issues. When a court makes a decision, it issues a judgement. The judgement contains both the decision itself and a detailed explanation of the legal reasoning that led to the decision.

'The reason for the decision.' This is the part of the judgement that forms the binding precedent for future cases. It contains the legal principle or rule that the judge applied to reach their decision.
E.g. Tuberville v Savage, the ratio decidendi established the legal principle that words can prevent an action being an assault.

Means 'other things said.' Judges in future cases do not have to follow obiter dicta, but it can provide very useful guidance on how the law might apply in different circumstances. It includes hypothetical scenarios, alternative reasoning and discussions of legal principles not directly applicable to the case.

For the precedent system to function effectively, there must be accurate records of judicial decisions. The records are called law reports and has existed since the thirteenth century.
It records the judgement word-for-word and are then published. Without them, there would be no record to follow.

Judges apply the same legal principle to the current case. If the precedent comes from a court above or on the same level as the present court, the judge must normally follow it.

E.g. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales followed Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.

The court in a later case states that the decision in an earlier case is wrong. It may occur when a higher court overrules a decision made in an earlier case by a lower court or the Supreme Court uses the Practice Statement to overrule a past decision of its own.

E.g. R v Jogee overruled R v Powell

A judge avoids following a precedent by finding that the material facts of the current case are sufficiently different from the case setting the precedent. If a distinction can be drawn between the two cases, the judge is not bound by the previous case.

E.g. Merritt v Merritt distinguished Balfour v Balfour.