Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Precedents are not binding statements which future judges must follow. They are in fact guiding principles.” Do you agree
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Tue Jun 20 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
"Precedents are not binding statements which future judges must follow. They are in fact guiding principles." Do you agree? Introduction The doctrine of precedent is that of stare decisis (standing by previously decided rules of law). It only applies to rules of law decided in superior courts, is applicable to all future cases, and is immediately operational. It should be distinguished from res judicata, which means standing by a past decision unless it is reversed (as distinct from overruled) on appeal, applicable in all courts, only affecting the parties to a case, and operational once all appeals have been exhausted. Both doctrines are of practice rather than law, although they are, in effect, as binding (or more so) than any statute. Judicial overruling is retrospective (i.e. any cases that appear before the court in the future having happened before the date of overruling will be decided on the basis of the...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 150,159 others
