Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Law Paper One

- - - - Criminal Division
      - Civil Devision
    - - Queen's Bench Division
      - Chancery Division
      - Family Division
  - - - Authorised By The Judge Of The Case
    - - Name Of Case
      - Court In Which It Was Heard
      - Name Of The Judges
      - Date Of Decision
      - Summary Of Facts And Legal Issues
      - List Of Cases And Statutes Referred To
      - Names Of Counsel Appearing
      - Judgement Given
    - - The Times
      - Guardian
      - The England Law Report
  - - - A Point Of Law Which Has Never Been Decided before
      - HUNTER AND OTHER V. CANARY WHARF
    - - Precedent From Earlier Cases Which Must Be Followed, Even If The Judge Does Not Accept The Legal Prinicple
    - - Non Binding Decisions Persuading A Judge To Accept The Legal Prinicple
      - Courts Lower In The Hierarchy
        
        R V. R
      - Decisions Of The Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
        
        HOLLEY Followed By KARIMI AND JAMES
      - Obiter Dicta
        
        DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON
        
        The Neighbour Test
        
        GOTTS And HOWE
      - A Dissenting Judgement
      - Decisions From Courts In Other Countries
        
        R V. PARKS
  - - - When A Court Is Asked To Review Whether A Precedent Created By A Court Lower In The Hierarchy Is Correct In Law
      - ECJ And Supreme Court Can Overrule Their Own Previous Decisions
        
        The Use Of The Practice Statement
        
        Per Incuriam
        
        YOUNG V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE
      - PEPPER V. HART Overrulled DAVIS V. JOHNSON
      - HEDLEY BYRNE V. HELLER Overruled CANDLER V. CRANE CHRISTMAS
    - - When A Judge Can Use This Method To Avoid Following A Past Decision He Would Otherwise Be Bound By Precedent To Follow
        
        Different Material Facts
      - MERRITT V. MERRITT And BALFOUR V. BALFOUR
      - R V. BROWN And R V. WILSON
    - - ANNS V. MERTON
      - MURPHY V. BRENTWOOD
  - - - Certainty In The Law Is More Important Than Individual Hardship
    - - Parliament Changed The Law In This Regard In The Criminal Justice Act 1967
      - Practice Statement 1966
        
        Changing The Rule In LONDON STREET TRAMWAYS
        
        Can Depart From Previous Decisions When It Appears Right To Do So
        
        Only Applicable To The Supreme Court
        
        HERRINGTON V. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
        
        A Duty Of Care On British Rail To look After Their Fences
        
        Authority Changed From ADDIE V. DUMBRECK
        
        PEPPER V. HART Overruled In DAVIS V. JOHNSON
  - - - Lord Denning Tried To Alter This
        
        BROOME V. CASSELL & CO
        
        MILIANGOS
    - - YOUNG V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE COMPANY
        
        The Court Of Appeal Can Choose Between Its Own Conflicting Decisions
        
        If Its Own Previous Decision Has Been Disapproved By The Supreme Court, It Should Not Be Followed
        
        The Court Of Appeal Is Not Bound By Decisions Of Its Own Made Per Incuriam
        
        Used In Rare And Exceptional Cases
        
        RICKARDS V. RICKARDS
  - - - The Reason For Deciding
      - The Binding Part Of The Judgement
      - Courts Higher Lower In The Structure Are Bound To Follow The Decisions Of The Higher Courts
  - - - Certainty
        
        People Know What The Law Is Which Has Benefits For All
        
        . Lawyers Can Advise Their Clients Accurately
        
        The Public At Large Know What Is And Is Not A Criminal Offence And Gauge Their Behaviour Accordingly
      - Consistency And Fairness In The Law
        
        Cases That Have Similar Facts Will Decided In The Same Way
        
        It Prevents Judges Making Random Decisions And Ensures Justice Is Achieved By Treating The Same Issue In The Same Way.
      - Precision
        
        The Law Becomes Extremely Precise And Well- Illustrated And Is Built Up Over A Period Of Time Through The Variations That Make It To Court
        
        Judgements Are Responses To Real Life Situations Which Set Out Legal Principles To Be Applied In The Future.
      - Flexibility
        
        There Is Room For The Law To Be changed By The Courts
        
        Out Dated Precedent Can Be Overruled
        
        Allows The Courts To Deal With Situations Not Envisaged By Parliament
      - Timesaving
        
        Once A Principle Is Clear, Few Are Likely To Clog The Courts Challenging The Law
    - - Rigidity
        
        Given The Time Taken And Hurdles To Be Jumped For Cases To Make It To The Most Significant Appellate Courts, If Bad Decisions Are Made By Those Courts, We Are Often Stuck With Them For A Long time.
      - Complexity
        
        Judgements Are Long And It Is Sometimes Difficult To Find What The Ratio Is
        
        R V. BROWN
      - Illogical Distinctions
        
        Distinguishing Allows For ‘Hair- Splitting’ To Avoid A Precedent You Don’t Want To Follow.
      - Slowness Of Growth
        
        Allowing The Court Of Appeal Flexibility In Following Its Own Previous Decisions As The System Of Precedent Does Not Allow For Swift Change
      - Undemocratic
        
        The Basis Of This Criticism Is That Judges Are Not Elected And Constitutionally, It Is Parliament That Should Make The Law, Judges Interpret It
        
        Judges Do Make Law To A Greater Or Lesser Extent But There Is No Redress Should We Feel Decisions Made Are Bad, Unlike With Our Politicians That We Can Vote Out Every 5 Years.
      - Retrospective Effect
        
        Unlike Parliamentary Law Which Comes Into Force On A Set Date, Judge-Made Law Takes Effect On The Case In Question.
        
        This Can Be Considered Extremely Unjust Because At The Time,Those Involved Would Have Considered Themselves To Be Acting Lawfully.
        
        R V. R