Essay: Hierarchy of the Courts

A major belief in the doctrine of judicial precedent lays, is that there needs to be a hierarchy of the courts in order to operate. The whole idea of Stare Decisis, meaning to stick with what has been concluded this makes the basis of the doctrine of judicial precedent. The point of this is that similar cases should be treated in a parallel accordance the reason being that the certainty and consistency which is said to leads to impartiality.
The result that we get from this is that legal reasoning on a point of law that was used in a case previously must be shadowed. Having that being said if we did not take consideration of the positioning of the courts, the ability to set precedent the doctrine of judicial precedent would useless as this would make it extremely difficult to define which precedent took precedence.
This has all been overcome because of the doctrine of judicial precedent that all courts are to follow a firm decision made by the higher courts in the hierarchy. The only court that can skip this real is an appeal court as they normally go by their own previous decisions.
Judicial precedent functions within the English legal system and it is acknowledged that some principles will be applied and dealt with in turn
Even though European law is not part of our legal structure we are still subject to European law, so for example the decisions that are made of the European courts will be requisite on all of the courts within England and wales. Now this does not work the other way round the reason that this is, is because it is said that European countries have a more free approach towards precedent than we do in the UK this is the case within countries that apply civil codes.
When we are to look at UK’s court hierarchy we begin at the top with the Supreme Court, with all decisions being followed by all the courts within England and wales. To this rule you will find few exceptions to this rule. So for example if a decision was to conflict with the decision made by the European court of human rights or the European courts of justice.
As an appeal court you would think that a Supreme Court to be held to its own decisions this tends to be the case and the Supreme Court will take their own previous verdicts as binding. The supreme court can step away from past verdicts only if it appears correct to do so. This is only allowed under the term of the 1966 practice statement that was distributed by Lord Chancellor Lord Gardiner, this was done in response to condemnation that the last system was seen as being bound and too rigid leading to there being injustice in singular cases.
In the Civil division of the Court of Appeal it is bound to follow it previous verdicts (Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944)). While Criminal Division of the appeal court is allowed some leeway to detach itself from verdicts when handling someone’s liberty is at risk. (R v Taylor (1950)).
It is vital that divisional courts follow their own past verdicts (Huddersfield Police Authority v Watson (1947)) and shadow verdicts of the Appeal Court and Supreme Court. This makes logic and thus the High Court being bound by the doctrine of precedent to shadow the verdict of the Appeal Court, Divisional Courts and Supreme Courts. The High Court is not tied to follow pervious verdicts but if you get two conflicting verdicts the older outcome will be favoured providing that complete consideration of the law was taken.
The Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Crown Court are seen as inferior courts and must follow courts that are higher them in the hierarchy. The Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Crown Court do not make precedent
Ratio Decidendi meaning reason for the decision. Ratio decideni is the part at the end of judgement that is delivered to explain the reason for the verdict. This is the significant section of the judgement specified by judge handling the case.
If legal reasons from previous verdicts were not stated then the doctrine of judicial precedent would not be able to operate. This section of judgement that allows for precedent for different judges to shadow.
Not all section is binding in regards to judgement – different sections of judgement, that aren’t binding, might have briefly outlined or summary of the facts on the case and an evaluation of the legal put forward to the judge or judges by the supporters in the case. This tends to precede the verdict itself and the legal cogitate behind the verdict.
Cases can be mostly difficult, following up to an analysis of the law made up of previous verdicts across a lengthy period. In addition things are not simplified when you have a panel of multiple judges as there most likely will be in significant appeal cases in the Supreme Court and Courts of appeal. It might be best to not just take in just the single speech but multiple. This can be made more confusing at every judge has the entitlement to lay out their own legal opinion to their verdict. More than one ratio in the judgement will have to be analysed by legal advisers.
Ratio decidenti ought to be mixed with sections of judgment this is also known as obiter dicta this means other things said. Such comment from the judge though occasionally useful and persuasive are not compulsory.
It is important that law reporting is done correctly to avoid the doctrine of judicial precedent potentially can be unsuccessful. The doctrine of judicial precedent relies on being able to go back and look at previous verdicts. Now if outcome are not reported and consequently not documented, then the idea will be impractical. Before 1865 there were different methods of law reporting but after that the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting have been made accountable for creating certified accounts of verdicts
You can now find a wide range of law reports on the internet along with in book form. This has had a great impact on accessibility and speeded up the process in which report are obtainable to the people within the legal profession. Subscription websites have been created to reply to the increasing request for obtainable law reports, Supreme Courts and Appeal Courts have their own official websites.