Assess the advantages of using precedent

The advantages of judicial precedent are certainty, consistency and fairness, precision,
flexibility, time-saving, and cost-saving. This essay will assess each court to evaluate whether
using precedent is advantageous or not for each court in the hierarchy.

The supreme court binds all other courts in the hierarchy using precedent. This is advantageous
since it allows for certainty and consistency for the lower courts since a precedent is already set
and so results will not differ from each other in each case. This is also fair for the citizens since
the personal bias of each judge is unlikely to affect the case due to the binding precedent set
already. Making use of the Ratio Decidendi, the supreme court also makes the law precise where
the Acts of Parliament are vague allowing for wider application of the law in a manner that is
more certain and predictable for citizens. The use of the Practice Statement (1966) allows for the
law to also be more flexible and adaptable to modern times as the supreme court can overrule its
own precedent to make more just laws. This allows greater access to justice. Considering the
court sets a binding precedent, it also makes the judicial process more efficient in monetary
terms since citizens can spend less money to get justice at lower courts rather than having to
appeal repeatedly thus also saving their time.

However, it may also be called uncertain and inconsistent in terms of itself considering it is not
bound by its own precedent as per the Practice Statement and thus, the law is subject to change
as per the courts’ discretion. The binding precedent on other courts in the hierarchy makes the
law unfair and rigid considering the courts can not change the law when it is unfair and must
apply the precedent. We see countless examples of this such as in R v R where the High court
and CoA refused to change the law due to the binding precedent forcing the case to appeal to the
high court which was also very expensive and time consuming, making justice inaccessible to
many of the lower class. It is also inaccessible since case reports use primarily legal jargon and
are complicated to read and comprehend. It is also static considering the supreme court only
hears about 50 cases annually and not everyone has the resources to appeal.

The Court of Appeal (CoA) can be said to be certain and consistent in terms of setting a binding
precedent for other courts which allows justice to be more accessible since a precedent will
reduce the need for appeals. It is also certain in terms of its own precedent considering it is
mostly bound by its own precedent while still exercising flexibility with its five exceptions,
allowing it to unfollow precedent in case of (1) their being two conflicting precedents (2) the
precedent being made in error and (3) its own or the Supreme Court's precedent going against
the ECtHR. This also makes the law more fair since it allows for improvement and consistent
growth in law. It also allows saving in time and money in cases of miscarriages of justice where it
can overrule its own precedent or even the Supreme Courts’ if the precedent is made ‘per
incuriam’ or in conflict with the ECtHR, which allows people to get access comparatively quicker
as compared to if they had to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The CoA however can also be said to be too inflexible considering it is bound by past precedents
as well as the Supreme Courts’ decision allowing a lack of innovation in law as well as a greater
chance of miscarriages in justice. Since the divisions are separate in their precedential use, we
may also conclude that it is unpredictable and causes uncertainty as to which precedent will be
applied. The same can also be said for the five exceptions, allowing for uncertainty as to which
precedent will be followed or if its own precedent would even apply. Considering the expenses of
the CoA, we may also conclude that it is inefficient in carrying out justice.

The High Court is bound by the Supreme Court and CoA, allowing for certainty. Moreover, the
five exceptions applying to the CoA also apply to the High Court leading to similar advantages. It
can also be said that due to the binding precedent it sets for the inferior courts, it leads to
consistency and greater access to justice since citizens will not have to appeal to receive justice.

However, the High Court is mostly inflexible considering it is bound by the Supreme Court, CoA,
as well as its own precedent (with the same five exceptions we observe in the CoA). Considering
it is similar to the CoA in all other aspects, the same disadvantages would apply to the High
Court as well.

Inferior Courts (Crown Courts, Magistrate Courts, and County Courts) are all consistent in their
application of the law, being bound by the superior courts and are thus certain as well as
allowing greater access to justice since it is unlikely personal bias would apply. They are also
efficient and time-saving as well as cost-saving considering inferior courts are all over the UK
and are greatly accessible due to relatively low costs and faster processing time allowing for
greater access to justice as well for citizens. Inferior courts may also be called flexible
considering the statutory law is open to their personal interpretation in areas of vagueness
allowing for more personalization of verdict and greater justice.

However, inferior courts are highly inflexible considering they are bound by superior courts and
can not unfollow a decision even if it is a miscarriage or misinterpretation of justice. We may
also say it is more uncertain and inconsistent with statutory law and open to interpretation since
the decision may vary from judge to judge which also leads to imprecision. It may also be unfair
considering a precedent can not be overruled even if it is unjust for the citizens or incompatible
with the current social climate of the world.