Judicial precedent concerns itself with the influence and value of past

decisions of case law and prior legal experience.

Hierarchy of the courts – A fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of judicial precedent rests, is
that a hierarchy of courts is needed if it is to operate. The concept of stare decisis, meaning stand by
what has been decided, forms the basis of the doctrine of judicial precedent. The notion is that like
cases should be treated alike for the sake of certainty and consistency which, it is argued, leads to
fairness.

The effect of this is that, ordinarily, the legal reasoning on a point of law made in an earlier case must be
followed. However if all courts regardless of their status or seniority were able to set precedent the
doctrine of judicial precedent would be a nonsense as it would be practically impossible to determine
which precedent took precedence!

The doctrine of judicial precedent has overcome this by the requirement that all courts are strictly
bound to follow decisions made by the courts above them in the hierarchy. In addition appellate courts
are normally bound by their own past decisions.

The doctrine of judicial precedent operates in the English legal system and it is accepted that certain
principles apply and these will be dealt with in turn.

In the case of European law, whilst the European Court of Justice is not part of our legal structure, our
law is subject to European law and to give effect to this concept, the decisions of the European Court are
binding on all courts in England and Wales. This is not to say that the European Court is bound by its
own past decisions because the European court is not so bound. The reason for this is said to be that
other European countries have a more flexible approach to precedent than we do and this is particularly
the case in countries which have civil codes.

With regard to our own hierarchy, we start with the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the UK
and as such its decisions must be followed by all other courts in England and Wales. There are only
limited exceptions to this rule and these are where a decision conflicts with a decision of the European
Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.

As an appellate court one would expect the Supreme Court to be bound by its own decisions and this is
ordinarily the case and the Supreme Court will regard its own past decisions as binding. The Supreme
Court can however depart from its previous decisions if it 'Appears right to do so'. This is permitted
under the terms of the 1966 Practice Statement which was issued by the Lord Chancellor Lord Gardiner
in response to criticisms that the previous system of considering itself as being always bound was too
rigid and may have led to injustice in individual cases.

The Court of Appeal must follow the decisions of the Supreme Court (Broome v Cassell & Co (1971),
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976)).

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is bound to follow its own past decisions (Young v Bristol Aero plane
Co Ltd (1944)). Whereas the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is allowed some flexibility to depart
from a decision when dealing with a case where a person's liberty is at stake (R v Taylor (1950)).

Divisional courts are required to follow their own previous decisions (Huddersfield Police Authority v
Watson (1947)) and must follow the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal decisions.

It makes sense, therefore, that the High Court is bound by the doctrine of precedent to follow the
decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Divisional Courts. Ordinarily the High Court is not
bound to follow its own past decisions but in the event of two conflicting decisions, the later decision is
to be preferred provided it was reached after a full consideration of the law (Colchester Estates v
Carlton Industries (1984)).

The Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates' Court are regarded as inferior courts and must follow
the decisions of the courts above them,(the superior courts), in the hierarchy. Inferior courts do not
create precedent.

Ratio decidendi – reasons for the decision. The 'ratio decidendi' means the part of the judgement which
is delivered at the end of a case and which explains the reasons for the decision. This is the important
part of the judgement given by the judge dealing with the case.

The doctrine of judicial precedent would not be able to operate if it were not for the requirement that
the legal reason for past decisions must be stated. It is this part of the judgement which sets a precedent
for other judges to follow.

Not every part of the judgement is binding - other parts of the judgement, which are not binding, may
consist of a brief summary or outline of the facts of the case and a review of the legal arguments put to
the judge/s by the advocates in the case. These usually precede the decision itself and the legal
reasoning behind the decision.
Some cases can be particularly complicated, leading to a review of the law consisting of many past
decisions made over a long period of time. In addition things are not made any easier if there are several
judges as there probably will be in important appeal cases in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court. It may then be necessary to consider not just one speech but several. This can be further
complicated as each judge is entitled to set out their own legal reasoning leading to their decision, so
legal advisers may have to examine more than one ratio in the judgement.

The 'ratio decidendi' should be contrasted with parts of the judgement which are known as 'obiter dicta'
which simply means 'other things said'. Such remarks by the judge, although sometimes helpful and
influential, are not binding.

Law reporting – If cases were not properly recorded the doctrine of judicial precedent would fail. The
doctrine is, by definition, dependent upon being able to refer back to past decisions. If those decisions
are not reported and therefore not recorded, the concept would be unworkable.

Prior to 1865 there were various systems of law reporting but since that date the Incorporated Council
of Law Reporting has been responsible for producing official accounts of decisions.

There are also other reports such as the Weekly Law Reports and the All England Law Reports. The
existence of these various reports has resulted in the development of a recognized method of citation in
which the year of the report is used and letters to indicate the source of the report e.g. (1953) WLR, so
as to show that the report can be found in the Weekly Law Reports. Volume numbers are also included
to indicate the particular volume in which the case can be found.

Law reports can now be widely found on the internet as well as in book form and this has improved
accessibility and the speed with which reports can be made available to the legal profession. The Court
of Appeal and the Supreme Court have official sites on the internet but there are other subscription sites
that have developed to respond to the increasing demand for readily available law reports.

The fact that there is a system of law reporting does not mean that every single case is reported. Some
cases may only be referred to informally in a newspaper report. Such reports still have a value but the
court's permission to use such 'unreported cases' must be obtained before they can be used.