REFORMING THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL BINDING PRECEDENT

The doctrine of 'Binding Judicial Precedent' requires that judges must follow earlier court
decisions given by courts higher in the court hierarchy. This doctrine which is the cornerstone of
the English Common Law System is unjust and needs reform.

Some may argue that it brings consistency and/or finality to the law; it however breaches one of
the fundamental principles of 'Separation of Power'. In that, the primary role of the judiciary is to
adjudicate( interpret) the law and not to make it. Critics will say it is merely declaring the law. If
that is the case, then binding lower courts to abide by higher courts' decisions to a larger sense is
tantamount to law making. As one of the sources of the English Laws is Common Law( Judicial
Binding Precedent). Every court must be given the the free will to interpret the law based on
material evidences presented before it.

Another case for reformation is that judges are also fallible, they can err too! A binding court
decision by a group of judges might be wrong. Hence if other lower courts are not given the
opportunity to interpret it differently, that will lead to miscarriage of Justice.

To reform this system, judges role should be "to establish the facts of the case (based on evidences
presented to them) and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. "