Why should decisions made by courts yesterday be binding on courts when they make decisions today?

This a question about the procedural elements of law, questioning precedent. First, aim to tackle the assumptions within the question and whether you agree with them.
Assumption number 1: That decisions on courts are binding in reality they are not always binding, higher courts can overrule or distinguish precedents. Evidence: 1966 practice statement,
Assumption number 2: That the decisions should be binding --> use this as an opportunity to present your view. Advantages of precedent: predictability in legal systemEvidence: legal positivist argument (Jon Griffiths Disadvantages: flexibility, ensuring rights are protectedEvidence: R v G
Finally, consider what other types of mechanisms are in place to ensure that even if the decisions were binding, rights would also be safeguarded?Statute Law and parliamentary sovereignty

Answered by Law tutor

1119 Views

See similar Law A Level tutors

Related Law A Level answers

All answers ▸

What are the elements of common assault in Criminal Law?


Has the UK’s membership of the European Union led to a ‘constitutional revolution’, causing the abandonment of parliamentary sovereignty? If so, when did this constitutional revolution take place?


How do I answer scenario questions?


Critically assess the mens rea requirements for the offence of Murder


We're here to help

contact us iconContact usWhatsapp logoMessage us on Whatsapptelephone icon+44 (0) 203 773 6020
Facebook logoInstagram logoLinkedIn logo

© MyTutorWeb Ltd 2013–2024

Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy
Cookie Preferences