VocabuLaw

Precedent

What is it and what does it mean?

Description of the legal term Precedent:

The British legal system is known for its common law tradition, where the outcomes of earlier cases are often taken into consideration for deciding current cases. This is where the notion of precedent comes into play, which is arguably one of the most important aspects of British law.

Precedent, in the legal context, refers to a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The use and authority of precedents derive from the doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase that means “to stand by things decided.” Essentially, this doctrine dictates that once a court has settled on a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it will apply that principle in future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

The British legal hierarchy influences the binding nature of precedents. Decisions from higher courts are binding on lower courts within the same jurisdiction. For example, judgments by the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) are binding on all other courts in England and Wales. Conversely, lower courts do not create binding precedents for higher courts, although their decisions may be considered persuasive.

There are two types of precedents: binding precedents and persuasive precedents. A binding precedent must be followed by all lower courts under the principle of stare decisis, whereas persuasive precedents are those that courts may follow but are not obliged to. Persuasive precedents might come from decisions made in other jurisdictions or from a court of the same level.

Judges interpret the scope of precedents. They may apply a precedent directly if the case’s facts are similar to a previous case. However, if there is a material difference between the cases, a judge may “distinguish” the new case from the precedent. Ultimately, the flexibility within the doctrine allows for the evolution of law in response to changes in society.

Another critical aspect is the ratio decidendi, the legal reasoning or ground for the decision in a case that forms a binding precedent. Contrasting this is the obiter dictum, which includes observations made by a judge that are not necessary for the decision and, consequently, not binding.

Legal context in which the term Precedent may be used:

One notable example is the case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), which established the modern law of negligence in the UK and many other jurisdictions. In this case, Mrs. Donoghue fell ill after consuming a bottle of ginger beer in which a decomposed snail was later discovered. She sued Mr. Stevenson, the manufacturer, although there was no contractual relationship between them. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a “duty of care” to the ultimate consumer, establishing a new principle of negligence that required one to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions reasonably foreseeable to be likely to injure one’s neighbor. Here, “neighbor” meant anyone so closely affected by an act that they should be in the contemplation of the actor.

Another instance is the case of R v R (1991), where the House of Lords made the landmark decision that a husband could be guilty of the rape of his wife, abolishing the longstanding common law rule that a wife could not refuse consent to her husband. This was a depart from years of judicial understanding, where marital rape was not deemed a crime. This case had a profound effect on criminal law, making it clear that consent is mandatory and must be given voluntarily and with the capacity to do so, irrespective of marital status.

The significance of the doctrine of precedent in British law cannot be overstated. It provides consistency and predictability to the law, allowing individuals and businesses to know the legal ramifications of their actions. It ensures that similar cases are treated alike, thereby contributing to the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Furthermore, by standing on established decisions, the law can grow in a structured way without abrupt changes, adapting to new developments while maintaining stability and uniformity. Hence, this principle is integral to the coherence and development of British jurisprudence.

This website is for informational purposes only and may contain inaccuracies. It should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.