Doctrine of Precedent (OCR A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Doctrine of precedent
Introduction to common law and judicial precedent
The English legal system evolved through customary practices and judicial decisions in court cases over many centuries. This system is known as common law.
Judicial decisions made by judges in cases are called precedents. These precedents form an essential source of law, meaning that earlier judicial rulings establish legal principles that must be followed by judges deciding similar cases in the future.
The concept of judicial precedent is fundamental to the English legal system. It means that the law develops incrementally through real cases, rather than being created entirely by legislation. This case-by-case development allows the law to adapt to new situations while maintaining consistency with established principles.
Judicial precedent refers to the process by which past decisions of judges create binding law for future judges to follow when deciding similar cases.
The doctrine of precedent establishes that lower courts are legally required to follow the decisions made by higher courts in the court hierarchy. This principle ensures consistency and fairness in the application of the law across different cases.
When the legal issue in a previous case matches the legal issue in a current case, the court hearing the current case must follow the decision reached in the earlier case. This approach of treating similar cases in the same manner promotes fairness in the justice system and provides certainty about how the law will be applied.
Stare decisis
Stare decisis is Latin for 'let the decision stand'. This represents the fundamental principle underpinning the entire doctrine of precedent.
The principle simply means that a decision made in an earlier case will stand as authoritative guidance for all future cases dealing with the same legal point.
The principle of stare decisis is not merely a suggestion or guideline—it is a binding legal requirement. Courts must follow relevant precedents from higher courts, and failure to do so would constitute an error of law that could be overturned on appeal.
When a court makes its decision, this is contained in the judgment. The judgment includes both the final decision itself and a detailed explanation of the legal reasoning that led the court to reach that conclusion.
Ratio decidendi
Ratio decidendi (Latin for 'the reason for the decision') is the crucial part of any judgment that creates binding precedent for future cases.
This is the specific legal principle or rule of law that the judge applies to reach their decision. Only the ratio decidendi has binding force on lower courts dealing with similar cases in the future.
All legal principles you learn from case law throughout your studies represent the ratio decidendi of those cases.
Case Example: Tuberville v Savage (1669)
The legal principle that words can prevent an action from constituting an assault is found in the ratio decidendi of this case.
This binding principle must be followed by courts hearing similar cases. When a defendant's words indicate they will not carry out a threatening act, those words can negate what would otherwise be an assault.
Identifying the Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is identified by examining three key elements:
- The material facts of the case (the facts that influenced the decision)
- The legal principle applied to those facts
- The decision reached based on that principle
Understanding how to identify the ratio is essential for analyzing case law and predicting how courts will decide future cases.
Obiter dicta
Obiter dicta (Latin for 'things said by the way') comprises all other parts of the judgment apart from the ratio decidendi.
While judges in future cases are not legally bound to follow obiter dicta, these judicial comments can provide valuable persuasive guidance when deciding similar cases.
Obiter dicta might include:
- Hypothetical scenarios discussed by the judge
- Legal principles mentioned but not applied to the facts
- General observations about the law
Case Example: Hill v Baxter (1958)
In this case, the judge discussed the hypothetical scenario of a driver being attacked by a swarm of bees while driving.
Although this was not relevant to the actual facts of the case being decided, it provides useful guidance for understanding when a defendant's actions might be considered involuntary. This hypothetical discussion is relevant to the requirement for a voluntary act and the defence of automatism.
This illustrates how obiter dicta, while not binding, can offer valuable insights for future cases dealing with similar legal issues.
Hierarchy of the courts
The principle of stare decisis ('let the decision stand') operates through a strict court hierarchy. Courts are bound to follow decisions from courts higher in the hierarchy, while their own decisions bind courts lower in the structure.
Understanding the court hierarchy is essential because it determines which precedents are binding and which are merely persuasive. A judge must follow precedents from higher courts but has more flexibility regarding decisions from courts at the same level or below.
The following table shows which courts are bound by which other courts, and which courts each level binds:
| Court | Bound by | Binding on | Key cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | No court (not even itself) | All domestic courts of the Commonwealth, including England | Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936); The Wagon Mound (1961) |
| Supreme Court | European Court of Justice on EU matters (historically) Not bound by itself | All other UK courts | R v Brown (1993); Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) |
The Supreme Court's Unique Position
The Supreme Court sits at the apex of the UK court system and its decisions bind all lower courts. However, the Supreme Court itself is not bound by its own previous decisions, allowing it to depart from earlier rulings when necessary to develop the law.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, while technically not part of the domestic UK court hierarchy, hears appeals from Commonwealth countries and its decisions are highly persuasive (though not binding) in English courts.
Exam guidance
When answering exam questions on judicial precedent, keep these strategies in mind:
- Use case examples to illustrate legal principles wherever possible
- Remember that the legal principle established by the case is what matters most, not necessarily the detailed facts
- All cases you study are precedents, so demonstrate your knowledge by citing them appropriately
- Focus on explaining how the ratio decidendi creates binding law, while obiter dicta only provides persuasive guidance
Top Tip for Exams
Don't just memorize case names—understand the legal principles they establish. Examiners want to see that you can apply the ratio decidendi of cases to new scenarios, not just recite facts. Practice identifying whether judicial statements are ratio decidendi or obiter dicta, as this distinction is crucial for determining which parts of a judgment create binding precedent.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Judicial precedent means past judicial decisions create binding law for future cases with similar facts
- Stare decisis ('let the decision stand') is the fundamental principle requiring courts to follow earlier decisions
- Ratio decidendi ('the reason for the decision') is the binding part of a judgment that creates precedent
- Obiter dicta ('things said by the way') comprises non-binding parts of the judgment that provide persuasive guidance
- The court hierarchy determines which courts must follow which precedents: lower courts are bound by higher courts
- The Supreme Court binds all other UK courts but can depart from its own previous decisions
- Similar cases must be treated similarly to promote fairness and legal certainty