Saint Olave's Law Society Journal ; Issue 01 (Autumn 2013) | Page 5

Saint
 Olave’s
 Law
 Society
 Journal

court
 lower
 down
 the
 hierarchy.
  Also,
 statements
 made
 obiter
 dicta
  could
 create
 persuasive
 precedent,
  as
 could
 a
 dissenting
 judgement,
  which
 comes
 from
 a
 ratio
 decidendi
  made
 by
 a
 judge
 not
 in
 agreement
  with
 the
 majority
 when
 there
 are
  multiple
 judges
 on
 a
 previous
 case.
  There
 is
 a
 strict
 hierarchy
 of
 the
  courts
 in
 the
 English
 and
 Welsh
 legal
  system
 that
 affects
 judicial
  precedent.
 Each
 court
 is
 bound
 to
  follow
 precedent
 set
 by
 courts
 above
  them
 in
 the
 hierarchy
 e.g.
 precedent
  set
 in
 the
 high
 court
 is
 binding
 on
  county
 and
 magistrates
 courts,
 but
  in
 turn
 precedent
 set
 in
 the
 Supreme
  Court
 is
 binding
 on
 the
 high
 court,
 as
  well
 as
 county
 and
 magistrates
  courts.
 In
 addition,
 appellate
 courts
  (courts
 of
 appeal)
 are
 bound
 to
  follow
 their
 own
 past
 decisions.

  Despite
 rules
 of
 precedent
 generally
  being
 quite
 strict,
 there
 are
 several
  ways
 in
 which
 a
 judge
 can
 avoid
  following
 a
 previous
 decision.
 One
  way
 in
 which
 they
 can
 do
 so
 is
 by
  distinguishing.
 This
 is
 fairly
 self-­? explanatory,
 and
 involves
 the
 judge
  being
 able
 to
 argue
 that
 the
 current
  case
 and
 the
 previous
 one
 are
  sufficiently
 different
 that
 the
  precedent
 does
 not
 have
 to
 be
  followed.
 Another
 method
 of
  avoiding
 precedent
 is
 the
 process
 of
  overruling.
 A
 judge
 can,
 if
 he
 can
  prove
 it,
 state
 that
 the
 previous
  decision
 was
 incorrect,
 and
 so
 not
  have
 to
 follow
 the
 precedent.
 This
  mostly
 happens
 when
 a
 higher
 court
  overturns
 a
 previous
 decision
 made
  by
 a
 lower
 court,
 or
 when
 the
  European
 Court
 of
 Justice
 overturns
  one
 of
 its
 own
 past
 decisions.
 The
  third
 option,
 reversing,
 is
 very
  similar
 to
 overruling
 in
 that
 it
 entails
  a
 higher
 court
 overturning
 the
  decision
 of
 a
 lower
 court.
 However,

it
 is
 crucially
 different
 in
 that
  reversing
 takes
 place
 when
 the
  higher
 court
 is
 hearing
 an
 appeal,
  and
 overturns
 the
 original
 decision
  made
 by
 the
 lower
 court
 on
 the
 same
  case.

  There
 are
 a
 number
 of
 differences
  between
 the
 legal
 system
 of
 England
  and
 Wales
 and
 those
 of
 other
  countries.
 The
 English
 legal
 system
  is
 very
 unusual
 in
 its
 extensive
 use
 of
  precedent.
 Many
 other
 countries
  have
 what
 is
 known
 as
 a
 “code
 of
  law”,
 and
 are
 much
 less
 dependent
  on
 precedent
 when
 making
 judicial
  decisions.
 Another
 difference
 is
 that
  some
 countries,
 namely
 America,
 use
  something
 called
 prospective
  overruling.
 This
 means
 that,
 if
 a
 case
  results
 in
 a
 change
 in
 the
 law,
 the
  law
 is
 changed
 for
 all
 future
 cases,
  but
 that
 case
 is
 concluded
 under
 the
  old
 law.
 This
 differs
 from
 England
 in
  that,
 if
 the
 law
 changes
 due
 to
 a
 case,
  the
 changes
 are
 effective
  immediately,
 including
 for
 that
 case.
  This
 is
 known
 as
 “dog’s
 law”,
 and
  means
 court
 decisions
 can
 be
 less
  predictable
 for
 the
 parties
 involved.

  The
 use
 of
 judicial
 precedent
 in
 law
  does
 have
 many
 advantages.
 It
  creates
 certainty
 of
 the
 law,
 meaning
  lawyers
 and
 parties
 in
 court
 have
  some
 idea
 of
 how
 the
 case
 will
 go
  based
 on
 previous
 cases;
 it
 means
  decision
 making
 is
 consistent
 and
  fair;
 it
 saves
 time
 for
 the
 judge
 who
  has
 some
 help
 in
 coming
 to
 a
  decision;
 and
 it
 also
 allows
 the
 law
  to
 be
 flexible
 and
 change
 over
 time
  according
 to
 different
 social
  conditions,
 unlike
 a
 code
 of
 law
  which
 is
 fixed.

  On
 the
 other
 hand
 there
 are
 also
  limitations.
 It
 can
 lead
 to
  unnecessary
 rigidity
 in
 the
 law,

  Issue
 01