Essay On Judicial Precedent

Judicial precedent is the process whereby judges refer to previously decided cases with similar facts and apply those principles used in such cases. Where no statute applies to a particular legal case, the doctrine of judicial precedent comes in. These principles derived from the common law or case law. The English common law originated in the early Middle Ages in the King’s Court. Common law, like many early legal systems, did not originally consist of human rights but of procedural remedies. The use of these remedies, overtime, created the modern system in which rights are seen as primary over procedure. It was not until the 19th century, that English common law continued to be developed by judges rather than being created by legislators.

The doctrine of judicial precedent involves the application of the doctrine of binding judicial precedent, stare decisis. This means that inferior courts are bound to follow the legal principles set out by superior courts in earlier cases. Once a point of law has been decided in a particular case, that law must be applied in all future cases with similar facts. This guarantees consistency and predictability of the law. The operation of precedent

The judgment of a judge can fall into two categories: the ratio decidendi and the obiter dicta. The ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law on which the case is based. This is considered the heart of the doctrine and is the only aspect of the court’s ruling that is binding on the future courts in the hierarchy. This means that a lower court is bound to follow the judgments of a higher court in the same jurisdiction. When a judge delivers the judgment of a case, he outlines the facts which have been proven through the evidence presented on a case. He then applies the law on those facts and then comes to a decision for which he gives reason i.e. ratio