Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
and - of precedent - Coggle Diagram
-
Certainty
because judges follow past decisions, people know what the law is and how it is likely to be applied in their case
this allows lawyers to advise clients on the likely outcome of cases
it also allows people to operate their business knowing that financial and other arrangements they make are recognised by law
HoL Practice Statement 1966 pointed out how important certainty is
uncertainty
this can aries when a higher court reverses a decision of a lower court
this happened inn R v Kingston: HoL reversed the decision of the CoA and dismissed the defendant's argument that his involuntary intoxication could be used as a defence
precision
as the principles of relevant law are set out in actual cases, the law becomes very precise
it is well illustrate, and a body of rules gradually builds up through the different variations of facts in the cases that come before the courts
flexibility
there is room for the law to change with society as the Supreme Court can use the Practice Statement to overrule past cases that may not reflect current trends
BRB v Herrington - HoL considered that there had been considerable social change since the previous precedent was decided in 1929
slowness of growth
judges are well aware that some areas of the law are unclear or in need or reform; however, they cannot make a decision unless a case comes before the courts to be decided
this is one of the criticisms of the need for the CoA to follow its own previous decisions, as only about 50 cases go to the Supreme Court each year
there may be a long wait for a suitable case to be appealed as far as the Supreme Court to bring about a change in the law
complexity
since there are nearly half a million reported cases, it may not be easy to find all the relevant case law, even with computerised databases
court judgments can be very long, with on clear distinction between comments and the reasons for the decision
this makes it difficult in some cases to extract the ratio decidendi; indeed, in Dodd's case, the judges in the Court of Appeal said they were unable to find the ratio in a previous decision of the HoL
filling gaps
where there is no statute law on a topic, such as the law on occupiers' liability towards trespassers before 1984 judges are able to fill gaps to ensure that the law is not at a standstill
illogical distinctions
the use of distinguishing to avoid past decisions can lead to 'hair-splitting' so that some areas of the law have become very complex
the differences between some cases may be very small and appear illogical
time saving
when a principle has been established, it can be seen through the whole system of law reporting
lawyers are able to save time and advise their clients that a case with similar facts or principles of law to a precedent is unlikely to be worth taking through the lengthy and costly process of litigation
rigidity
the law can be too inflexible and previous bad decisions may be continued, because:
lower courts have to follow decisions of higher courts
the CoA has to follow its own past decisions
also, as so few cases reach the Supreme Court, change in the law will only take place if parties have the courage, the persistence and the money to appeal their cases to the highest court