evaluation of precedent

• how does the doctrine of precedent contribute tothe certainty of law?

  The doctrine of precedent contributes to legal certainty by ensuring that judges follow past decisions. The House of Lords' Practice Statement of 1966 emphasized the importance of certainty in law. By adhering to established precedents, individuals and businesses can understand how the law is likely to apply in their cases. This predictability is crucial for clients in both civil and criminal cases, affecting decisions such as pursuing a claim or entering a plea.
• in what way does precedent promote justice and consistency in the law?

  Precedent promotes justice and consistency by ensuring that similar cases are treated similarly. This consistency upholds the credibility of the law, as it is seen as fair and just to decide cases with similar facts in the same way. For example, the ratio decidendi in Donoghue v Stevenson, which established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to their consumers, was consistently applied in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills.
• how does the doctrine of precedent provide flexibility in the development of the law?

  The doctrine of precedent allows flexibility by enabling the Supreme Court to overrule its previous decisions through the Practice Statement when those decisions no longer reflect societal trends.
• Give examples of how the doctrine of precedent provides flexibility in the development of the law?

  An example is BRB v Herrington, where the court overruled the precedent set in Addie v Dumbreck due to significant social changes. This flexibility also allows the law to evolve with new societal needs, as seen in R v Burstow, where the definition of grievous bodily harm (GBH) was expanded to include serious psychological harm.
• in what way does the doctrine of precedent contribute to timesaving in the legal process?

  The doctrine of precedent saves time by allowing lawyers to reference established legal principles and case law. When a legal principle is well-established, it is documented throughout the law reporting system, enabling lawyers to quickly advise clients. If a case shares similar facts with a precedent, it is often unnecessary to pursue lengthy and costly litigation, thus saving time for all parties involved.
• How does the doctrine of precedent help fill gaps in the law?

  Precedent allows courts to address areas of law where no statute exists, ensuring that the legal system continues to function effectively. This gap-filling role is vital to prevent legal stagnation. An example is the development of occupiers' liability law toward trespassers before the introduction of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, where courts used precedent to provide necessary legal guidance.
• How does rigidity inthe doctrine of precedent negatively impact the development of the law?

  Rigidity in precedent can lead to the perpetuation of outdated or flawed legal decisions. Lower courts are required to follow the decisions of higher courts, even if they disagree with them, which can hinder the evolution of the law. The Court of Appeal has limited power to depart from its previous decisions, and since only a few cases reach the Supreme Court, changes in the law are infrequent. This can result in legal stagnation unless parties have the resources to pursue appeals to the highest level.
• why is complexity considered a disadvantage of the doctrine of precedent?

  The complexity of the doctrine of precedent arises from the vast number of reported cases, which makes it challenging to find relevant precedents. With nearly half a million reported cases, it can be difficult to identify which ones apply to a specific situation. Additionally, court judgments are often lengthy and may blur the distinction between obiter dicta (comments) and the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning behind the decision), making it hard to extract the core legal principles.
• what are illogical distinctions in the doctrine of precedent, why are they problematic?

  Illogical distinctions occur when courts use the method of distinguishing to avoid following past decisions, sometimes leading to "hair-splitting" differences between cases. This can create unnecessary complexity and confusion in the law, as the differences between cases may be minimal and appear illogical. Such distinctions can undermine the coherence of legal principles, making the law less predictable and harder to apply consistently.
• How does the slowness of growth affect the legal system under the doctine of precedent?

  The slowness of growth in the legal system is a significant drawback of precedent because judges cannot address unclear or outdated areas of the law unless a relevant case is brought before the courts. With only about fifty cases reaching the Supreme Court each year, legal reform can be delayed for long periods. This slow pace of change can result in outdated laws remaining in force until a suitable case finally makes its way through the appeal process.#
• In what way does uncertainty arise from the doctrine of precedent?

  Uncertainty can arise when higher courts reverse the decisions of lower courts, leading to confusion about the current state of the law. For example, in R v Kingston, the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that involuntary intoxication could not be used as a defense. Such reversals can create unpredictability in the law, as lower courts and legal practitioners may be unsure about how legal principles will be applied in future cases.