Photo AI
In a recent decision the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division) established a new precedent - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 8 - 2011 - Paper 1
Question 8
In a recent decision the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division) established a new precedent. a. Outline the original jurisdiction of the Victorian Supreme Court (... show full transcript
Worked Solution & Example Answer:In a recent decision the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division) established a new precedent - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 8 - 2011 - Paper 1
Step 1
Outline the original jurisdiction of the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division).
Answer
The original jurisdiction of the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division) encompasses both civil and criminal matters. Civil jurisdiction allows the court to hear cases involving disputes between individuals or organizations, typically involving claims exceeding a certain monetary threshold. Criminal jurisdiction involves the prosecution of serious criminal offenses, providing a venue for cases that carry significant penalties, such as imprisonment.
It is important to note that while the Supreme Court (Trial Division) has these jurisdictions, it does not hear all cases within these categories. For example, certain low-level criminal offenses might fall within the jurisdiction of lower courts, such as the Magistrates' Court.
Step 2
To what extent are judges bound to follow the new precedent in future cases with similar fact situations? Justify your answer.
Answer
Judges are generally bound to follow the precedent set by higher courts, including the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division), within the same jurisdiction. This principle, known as 'stare decisis,' ensures consistency in the application of law. However, there are nuances to this obligation:
-
Hierarchy of Courts: Decisions made by higher courts, such as the Court of Appeal and the High Court, are binding on lower courts. Therefore, trial judges must adhere to precedents established by these higher authorities.
-
Obligation to Follow Precedent: While lower courts are inherently obligated to follow previous decisions that may have been made by judges in the same or higher courts, they also must consider the specifics of each case, including facts and context.
-
Scope for Departure: In instances where a judge believes the precedent has been overruled or is no longer applicable due to changed circumstances, they may choose not to follow it. But, their decision would be subject to scrutiny.
-
Disagreement with Precedent: A judge who disagrees with the decision of a previous case may choose to distinguish their case from it while providing justification for why the precedent doesn’t apply.
In summary, judges must primarily follow precedent unless compelling justification exists to deviate from it. Precedents are critical for maintaining the integrity of the legal system, but judicial discretion also plays a vital role.