Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Where judges do not follow precedent (or where they distinguish binding cases on dubious grounds, as explained later) the result is to introduce great uncertainty into the law.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Mon Oct 27 2003
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:
Even in non-legal groups the idea of precedent is strong, and many social groups apply informal rules based on the way that things have always been done. Almost any concept of justice requires that like cases be treated alike, and this is the basis of the doctrine of precedent applied to a greater or lesser extent in every developed legal system. It is clearly desirable for the law to offer certainty, and so the practice is that once a judge has declared the common law to be such-and-such, his brethren generally follow suit. It is this principle of stare decisis - "that which is decided is to stand" - that forms the basis of common law. Where judges do not follow precedent (or where they distinguish binding cases on dubious grounds, as explained later) the result is to introduce great uncertainty into the law. The five cases below illustrate this...
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
