1 / 25

Judicial Precedent = the Doctrine of Precedent

Date: Sunday, 05 January 2020. Judicial Precedent = the Doctrine of Precedent. Lesson Outcomes: Define the meaning of the ratio decidendi & obiter dicta Distinguish between ratio decidendi & obiter dicta Distinguish between binding and persuasive precedent. Specification:

orduna
Download Presentation

Judicial Precedent = the Doctrine of Precedent

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Date:Sunday, 05 January 2020 Judicial Precedent = the Doctrine of Precedent Lesson Outcomes: Define the meaning of the ratio decidendi & obiter dicta Distinguish between ratio decidendi & obiter dicta Distinguish between binding and persuasive precedent • Specification: • The Doctrine of Precedent: the hierarchy of the courts; stare decisis, ratio decidendi and obiter dicta; law reporting. • The operation of the doctrine: following, overruling, distinguishing and disapproving. • Advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine and operation of precedent. Stare decisis= stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established i.e. legal decisions made by judges in higher courts set a precedent to be followed by that court and all courts below it in future cases of similar fact. • Three important elements: • Was the decision made by a higher court? (need ot know the court structure • What was the ratio decidendi (legal decision)? • Should the precedent be followed, distinguished, overruled or disapproved? 1

  2. Obiter Dicta = ‘other things said’ • Hypothetical situations considered by a judge that are not part of the decision • E.g. in Hill v Baxter the judge talked about what would have happened if a swarm of bees had flown into a car while someone was driving (even though this had nothing to do with the case!) • This hypothetical discussion is not binding precedent. • However, this could be considered persuasive precedent e.g. if there is a case in the future where a swarm of bees flies into a car, they may follow the hypothetical obiter dicta of Hill v Baxter! Ratio decidendi = ‘the reason for deciding’ i.e. the legal decision/principle of a case • This is binding precedent and must be applied (followed) in all other cases in lower courts that have the same facts or are looking at the same point of law • This is the only part of the legal decision that is binding on other cases • Sir Rupert Cross defined this as “any rule expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion”

  3. R v Howe & Bannister [1987] 2 WLR 568 House of Lords Howe & Bailey both aged 19 and Bannister aged 20, were acting under orders of Murray aged 35. The charges related to two murders and one conspiracy to murder. The first murder related to a 17 year old male victim, Elgar. Murray had driven them all to a public lavatory. Elgar was naked and sobbing and was subjected to torture and compelled to undergo sexual perversions. Howe and Bannister took part in kicking and punching Elgar and were told they would succumb to similar treatment if they did not do as Murray ordered. Bailey strangled Elgar resulting in his death. The second killing took place the following night at the same location on a 19 year old male Pollitt. Murray had ordered Howe and Bannister to strangle him and they complied. The third charge related to a similar incident, however, the intended victim managed to escape.Ratio Decidendi – The defence of duress is not available for murder whether it be a principal in the first or second degree. DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch overruled. Obiter dicta - The defence should not be available to one who attempts murder. (It was an obiter statement as the offence was one of murder not attempted murder) 3

  4. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 House of Lords The five appellants were convicted on various counts of ABH and wounding a under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The injuries were inflicted during consensual homosexual sadomasochist activities. The trial judge ruled that the consent of the victim conferred no defence and the appellants thus pleaded guilty and appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and certified the following point of law of general public importance: "Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under section 20 and section 47 of the 1861, Offences Against the Person Act?" Ratio Decidendi – The defence of consent cannot be relied on in offences under s.47 and s.20 OAPA 1861 where the injuries resulted from sadomasochist activities. Obiter dicta - The defence could be allowed in other circumstances such as ritual circumcision, tattooing, ear and body piercing and violent sports 4

  5. Defining key terms Stare Decisis Ratio decidendi Obiter Dicta

  6. Binding and persuasive precedent Task: Using the information in 5.1.6 (p.63-64), summarise the situation in which persuasive precedent has been followed. Don’t forget to include authority. Binding precedent is one that must be followed • Ratio decidendi is a binding precedent • Binding on all courts of same level and below Persuasive precedent is one that may be followed • Obiter dicta is a persuasive precedent • There are other forms of persuasive precedent: • Decisions in courts of other countries • Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council • Dissenting judgments 6

  7. Decisions of courts of other countries Scottish, US & especially Commonwealth countries are persuasive Because they have legal systems based on UK system This is due to previous or continuing dependence Examples include R v R (1991) which followed a decision in the Scottish Courts and Lister v Helsley Hall (2001) which followed a Canadian Court ruling 7

  8. R v R [1991] 3 WLR 767 House of Lords The defendant was charged with the attempted rape of his wife. At the time of the offence the couple had separated although no formal legal separation existed and neither party had partitioned for a divorce. Ratio Decidendi – The House of Lords overturned the matrimonial exception to rape. His conviction for rape was upheld. 8

  9. Lister v Helsley Hall [2001] 2 All ER 769 A number of former pupils sued in respect of sexual abuse by the warden of a residential school. Ratio Decidendi – Overruling T v North Yorkshire, (by using the obiter dicta decisions in two Canadian Court rulings) the House of Lords said there had been a close connection between the warden's acts and his employment at the school, and it would not be unfair or unjust to hold the defendants vicariously liable. An employer is vicariously liable for the criminal acts of an employee if those acts are so closely connected to what the employee was employed to do that it is fair and just to hold the employer responsible. 9

  10. Decisions of the Privy Council Final appeal court for Commonwealth countries Highly persuasive Equivalent in rank to the Supreme Court Staffed by the same judges who sit in Supreme Court Good examples are Attorney General for Jersey v Holley (2005) against R v Smith (Morgan) (2000) 10

  11. R v Smith (Morgan) [2000] 3 WLR 654 House of Lords The appellant, an alcoholic suffering from a depressive illness, stabbed his drinking partner after a row over some stolen tools. The trial judge ruled that severe depressive illness was not a matter for the jury to take into account in deciding whether an ordinary man sharing the respondent's characteristics would have lost his self control. In his summing up he told the jury that a depressive state was a characteristic to be taken into account when dealing with the gravity of the provocation but that the fact that the depressive illness might have disinhibited the respondent from behaving violently was irrelevant. The jury returned a verdict of murder and the appellant appealed contending the jury should have been allowed to take into account his depressive illness in assessing his reaction to the provocation. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal holding that there had been a mis-direction. The Crown appealed to the House of Lords. Ratio Decidendi – The House of Lords preferred the dissenting opinion in Luc Thuet Thuan holding that mental characteristics can be taken into account in assessing both the gravity of the provocation and the reaction of the defendant in relation to a reasonable man. The appeal was therefore dismissed. 11

  12. Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] 3 WLR 29 Privy Council A landmark case where the Privy Council declared that they were announcing the law applicable not only to Jersey but also to England and Wales. (Privy Council decisions are not generally considered binding in English law but of mere persuasive authority). The Judicial Committee consisted of nine members of the House of Lords. The defendant had a stormy relationship with the deceased. They were both alcoholics and he had a history of violence towards her for which he had spent time in prison. On his release from prison she indicated that she did not want to continue the relationship. However, they continued to live together having constant rows. On the day in question they had both been to the pub in the afternoon. He returned early because of an argument. She returned in the evening and announced that she had had sex with another man. He hacked her to death with an axe. At his trial he raised the defence of provocation. He wished to rely on his alcoholism, depression and other personality traits. The jury convicted him of murder. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal who quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. He was again convicted at the retrial and again appealed. His conviction was again quashed and a manslaughter conviction was substituted. The Attorney General sought leave to appeal arguing the decision in Smith (Morgan) was wrong and should not apply in Jersey. Ratio Decidendi – Held: 6:3 Decision (Lords Carswell, Bingham and Hoffman dissenting). The appeal was allowed. The law in Jersey and England & Wales is the same on this issue. The decision in Smith (Morgan) allowing mental characteristics to be attributed to the reasonable man in assessing the standard of self-control expected of the defendant is no longer good law. 12

  13. Dissenting judgments In appeal courts cases heard by more than one judge Sometimes decision reached by only a majority of judges Judges in minority will give reasons for different decision This is called a dissenting judgment Example Candler v Crane Christmas (1951)followed in Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners (1966) 13

  14. Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 An investor relied on the careless and wrong company’ financial statement which caused economic loss and then failed to claimed the damage from a negligence claim. Ratio Decidendi – The Court of Appeal held that although in this situation, the accountant knew that the financial statement will be relied upon by third party, no duty of care was imposed in relation to receiving careless advice by the accountants in preparing a company’s financial statement. This is because, no contractual relationship existed between them. In this case, Denning LJ dissenting argued that the defendant not only owed the duty of care to their employee or client but the defendant also owed a duty of care to any third parties to whom they themselves show the financial statement. An accountant must consider that someone will rely on the statement to invest money or take action with the statement. 14

  15. Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] (HL) PP were advertising agents who booked TV time on behalf of E Ltd. They asked their bankers to obtain a reference from E's bankers, and the latter replied favourably. E went into liquidation; PP lost money and sued E's bankers. Ratio Decidendi – The arguments of Denning LJ in the cases Candler v Crane Christmas & Co were followed when the House of Lord was prepared to extend the duty of care in the Hedley Byrne cases. The House of Lords said the bankers owed PP a duty of care (however, they escaped liability because of a disclaimer in their statement, denying legal responsibility for its accuracy.) 15

  16. Date:Sunday, 05 January 2020 Judicial Precedent – Hierarchy of the courts • Lesson Outcomes: • Describe the hierarchy of the courts • Explain which courts are bound by other courts & the exceptions to this • Specification: • The Doctrine of Precedent: the hierarchy of the courts; stare decisis, ratio decidendi and obiter dicta; law reporting. • General Rule: • Every court is bound to follow a decision from a court above • Appellate courts are bound by their own past decisions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTHrynZIsBo&feature=player_embedded Starter: What is the name of the highest court in England & Wales? 16

  17. Criminal Cases European Court of Justice Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Queen’s Bench Divisional Court Crown Court Magistrates’ Court Civil Cases European Court of Justice Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Divisional Courts High Court County Court Magistrates’ Court

  18. The Supreme Court London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898) AC 375 Earl of Halsbury LC:"a decision of this House once given upon a point of law is conclusive upon this House afterwards, and that it is impossible to raise that question again as if it was res integra and could be re-argued, and so the House be asked to reverse its own decision. That is a principle which has been, I believe, without any real decision to the contrary, established now for some centuries, and I am therefore of opinion that in this case it is not competent for us to rehear and for counsel to re-argue a question which has been recently decided." Until 1966 the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions unles they were made per incuriam (through lack of care) e.g. failing to refer to the relevant Act or precedent

  19. The Supreme Court British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) AC 877 A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line. The railway line was surrounded by a fence however, part of the fence had been pushed down and the gap created had been used frequently as a short cut to the park. The defendant was aware of the gap in the fence which had been present for several months, but had failed to do anything about it. Principle – Under existing authority of Addie v Dumbreck (1929) no duty of care was owed to trespassers. However, the House of Lords departed from their previous decision using the 1966 Practice Statement and held that the defendant railway company did owe a duty of common humanity to trespassers. In 1966 the Lord Chancellor issued a Practice Statement stating that it would be OK for the House of Lords to depart from its own decisions but it should be used sparingly in order to maintain certainty and consistency.

  20. Independent reading There is much more information regarding the Supreme Court, House of Lords and the use of the Practice statement in your textbook. Make sure you read this independently, take notes and note down the key authority (cases) • Key points & cases • Use of the Practice Statement in Civil Law • Herrington v British Railways Board • Knuller v DPP- Lord Reid quote (S&C) • Use of the Practice Statement in criminal law • Shivpuri – Lord Bridge quote (S&C) • R v G and R • Whether the Practice Statement applies to the Supreme Court • Austin v London Borough of Southwark

  21. The Court of Appeal Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 Court of Appeal Lord Greene MR: "The Court of Appeal is bound to follow its own decisions and those of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the ' full ' court is in the same position in this respect as a division of the court consisting of three members. The only exceptions to this rule are:— (1) The court is entitled and bound to decide which of two conflicting decisions of itsown it will follow ; (2) the court is bound to refuse to follow a decision on its own which, though not expressly overruled, cannot, in its opinion, stand with a decision of the House of Lords ; (3) the court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if it is satisfied that the decision was given per incuriam, e.g., where a statute or a rule having statutoryeffect which would have affected the decision was not brought to the attention of the earlier court.” • Directly below the Supreme Court & bound by its decisions • Two Divisions • Civil Division • Criminal Division • Each Division usually is usually bound by its own decisions (see exceptions below) but the two divisions do not bind eachother

  22. Independent reading There is much more information regarding the Court of Appeal and when it can and cannot be bound by precedent. Make sure you read this independently, take notes and note down the key authority (cases) • Key points & cases • Lord Denning’s attempts to say that the Court of Appeal doesn’t have to follow the House of Lords (stretch & challenge) • Young v Bristol Aeroplane – 3 rules as to when the Court of Appeal isn’t bound by its own decisions • Confirmed in Davis v Johnson • Williams v Fawcett • quote from Rickards v Rickards • Read the red box comment (Stretch & Challenge) • ‘Misapplied or misunderstood’ – Taylor, Gould, Spencer

  23. The High Court The Royal Courts of Justice building houses the Court of Appeal and the High Court • Two roles • Court of first instance (hears initial cases) • Appeal court • Three Divisions • Family Division • Chancery Division • Queen’s Bench Division • Each of these has its own Divisional Court • Bound by decisions made in appeal cases in the Divisional Courts of the High Court • In criminal appeals heard in Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division the additional rule about injustice and liberty also applies • First instance decisions in High Court must be followed by lower courts but need not be followed by other High Court Judges • However, these are highly persuasive and generally followed 24

  24. The Lower Courts The Crown Courts, County Courts, and Magistrates Courts do not set binding precedents Decision of Crown Courts are persuasive Normally decisions in these courts are not reported in the law reports 25

More Related