Role Of Judicial Precedents In Uk Law
What is Judicial Precedent?
Judicial precedent means decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts in similar cases.
It ensures consistency, predictability, and fairness in law.
The principle is often called stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”).
Types of Precedents
Binding precedent: Must be followed by courts lower in hierarchy.
Persuasive precedent: Not binding but may influence courts (e.g., decisions of courts from other jurisdictions or lower courts).
Original precedent: A completely new legal principle established by a court.
How Precedents Work
Courts look at ratio decidendi (the legal principle or reason for the decision) — this is binding.
Obiter dicta (other comments) are persuasive but not binding.
Higher courts (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal) create binding precedents for lower courts.
Landmark UK Cases Illustrating Judicial Precedent
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Fact: Mrs. Donoghue found a snail in a bottle of ginger beer and sued the manufacturer.
Legal Principle (Ratio): Established the modern law of negligence and the duty of care.
Role as Precedent: This case set a binding precedent for all negligence claims, shaping tort law worldwide.
2. R v. R [1991] UKHL 12
Fact: The case involved marital rape, where husband claimed immunity from rape charges.
Judgment: House of Lords overturned old common law, declaring that a husband could be guilty of raping his wife.
Role as Precedent: Original precedent abolishing outdated law; binding on all courts in the UK.
3. Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Fact: Concerned whether auditors owed a duty of care to potential investors.
Judgment: Established the three-part test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
Role: Refined and limited previous precedents, showing how courts can develop law incrementally.
4. R v. Brown [1993] UKHL 19
Fact: Case of consensual sadomasochistic acts causing injury.
Judgment: House of Lords held consent was not a defense for serious bodily harm in this context.
Role: Binding precedent clarifying limits of consent in criminal law.
5. Miller v. Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
Fact: Whether the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was lawful.
Judgment: Supreme Court held the prorogation unlawful.
Role: Shows judicial review and precedent can constrain even political powers.
6. R v. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Fact: Case re-examined the law on joint enterprise liability.
Judgment: Supreme Court overruled previous precedent, stating the mens rea for joint enterprise was wrongly applied.
Role: Demonstrates that the Supreme Court can overturn bad precedent, ensuring justice.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Principle | Precedent Role |
|---|---|---|
| Donoghue v. Stevenson | Duty of care in negligence | Original, foundational precedent |
| R v. R | Marital rape not immune | Overturned old precedent, original precedent |
| Caparo Industries | Three-part duty of care test | Developed and refined existing precedent |
| R v. Brown | Limits of consent in assault | Binding clarification on criminal law |
| Miller v. PM | Limits on executive power | Judicial review enforcing legal limits |
| R v. Jogee | Joint enterprise mens rea correction | Overturned bad precedent to correct law |
Quick Reflection:
Why do you think courts follow precedent? How does it help in legal decisions?
Can you think of situations where a court might choose not to follow precedent?
How does the UK Supreme Court’s power to overturn precedent ensure the law evolves?
RELATED Blog
0 comments