The doctrine of binding precedent, or stare decisis is the heart of the English Legal System. It refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a lower court. The House of Lords or the Supreme Court stands at the peak of the English court structure and its decisions are binding on all lower courts. And it should always have to bear in mind, that, as the UK is a member of the EC, and as the ECJ is the highest court, it is not bound by any higher court, the decisions of the ECJ is binding on the House of Lords and all the lower courts.The ECJ is not bound to follow its own previous decision. Also as a consequence of the HRA 1998 the decision of the ECtHR are now part of the jurisprudence of the UK courts.

This means that it is possible that the superior courts will find it necessary to alter previous precedents where they have been generated without reference to the ECHR. The House of Lords was not bound by its previous decisions before 1898. But from 1898 –1966 it regarded itself as bound by its own previous decisions.In 1966 Lord Gardiner indicated in the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) of that year that the HOL would in future regard itself as free to depart from its previous decisions where it appeared right to do so. The next court in the hierarchical structure is the Court of Appeal.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

It has two divisions. (i) Civil division and (ii) Criminal division. In a civil case, the situation is that, the Court of Appeal is generally bound by previous decisions of the House of Lords.

Broome v Cassell and Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd.The Court of Appeal is generally also bound by its own previous decisions. As explained, however, by Lord Greene MR in Young & Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd, there are a limited number of exceptions to this general rule. These exceptions arise where: (a)A previous decision of the Court of Appeal has been overruled (cancelled), either expressly or impliedly, by the HOL, in which case, the CA is required to follow the decisions of the HOL. (b)There is a conflict between two previous decisions of the CA, in which case, the later court must decide which decision to follow and, as a corollary, which to overrule.

c)If the previous decision of CA was wrong. In addition to the above, there is also the possibility that as a consequence of s 3 of the ECJ 1972, the CA can also ignore previous decisions of its own which is inconsistent with EC law or with a later decision of the ECJ. Courts in the criminal division are not bound to follow their own previous decisions. In the interest of justice they can depart from the previous decision.

Further down the hierarchy, the Divisional Court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis in the normal way and must follow decisions of the HOL and CA.It is also normally bound by its own previous decisions, although in civil cases, the exceptions of CA is available (Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd), and in criminal appeal cases, the Queen’s Bench Division may refuse to follow their earlier own decisions where they find it to be wrong. As regards the High Court, the decisions by individual High Court judges are binding on lower courts. Such decisions are not binding on other High Court judges, although they are of strong persuasive authority and tend to be followed in practice.Although subject to binding precedent from superior courts, Crown Courts cannot create precedent and their decisions can never amount to more than persuasive authority.

The decisions of county court and magistrates’ court are never binding. The operation of doctrine of binding precedent should not be thought that it is as hard and fast as originally appears. If a judge decides, for some reason that the facts in the case before him are so different from those of a previous similar case, he is at liberty to ignore the precedent and treat the case differently. He can decide the case as he thinks fit.Scope for further uncertainty is introduced by the necessary distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta . Only the important part of judgment that are binding on future courts are the ratio decidendi. Anything else, i. e.

the statements of principles of law that are not relevant to the decision are obiter dicta. Difficulty arises from the fact that judges do not label their judgments in this way. They do not actually separate and highlight the ratio of the case and their judgments may be of great length, or there may be many judges delivering individual judgments on the same case.So it is very difficult to determine the particular ratio of any case. The problem of binding precedent is that it is open to later judges to avoid precedents by declaring them to be no more than obiter statements. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of stare decisis.

Amongst these are the following: Advantages: (a)It is a time-saving device, as for most situations there is an existing solution. (b)It creates certainty in the law and allows lawyers to advice clients on the probable outcome of a case. c)It provides an opportunity for judges to develop the common law in particular areas without waiting for PA to enact legislations. (d)As decisions are based on real cases there are practical illustrations of the law. (e)It serves the interests of justice and fairness as similar cases are seen to be treated in a similar way. (f)Saves the money of potential litigants.

Disadvantages: (a)The large number of reported cases makes it difficult to find the relevant law. (b) The law is complex with too many fine distinctions. c)The law is slow to develop; it is recognized that areas of law are unclear and in need of reform, but changes cannot be made unless a case on the particular point of law comes before the court. (d)The doctrine as applied in the English Legal System is too rigid.

This mainly stems from two factors: •The House of Lords is reluctant to use the Practice Statement ;and •The Court of Appeal is bound to follow decisions of the House of Lords (e)This rigidity can create injustice in an individual case.