Judicial Precedent

Question 1

Precedent meaning?

Answer 1

Idea of legal system- Courts and Judges must follow what has been decided before.

Based on both Common/custom law- important to follow what has been decided previously.

Question 2

Stare decisis?

Answer 2

Idea legal system based on Precedent.
Decision made- Must be followed.
Idea based on their being certainty and fairness in the law.

Question 3

Define judgement and what it consists off?

Answer 3

Def: The statements made by judge/s when he/she has decided outcome of the case.

Consists off:
>Summary of facts
>The reasons for the decision (Ratio)
>Other things said (Obiter)

Question 4

The ratio decidendi?

Answer 4

Main part of judgement and provides info about why decision has been reached.

This forms precedent and must be followed in all future cases (court hierarchy).

Binding in all future cases if sufficiently superior in the hierarchy.

Question 5

Cases for ratio Decidendi?

Answer 5

Donoughue v Stevenson/ Grant v Australian Knitting mills/ Shaw DPP 1962 and Knuller v DPP 1973.

Question 6

Donoughue v Stevenson?

Answer 6

Facts: Mrs. Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer. After drinking some, a decomposed snail was found in the bottle, causing her illness. She sued the manufacturer, despite not being in a contract.

Held: The House of Lords ruled that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, even without a contract, establishing the “neighbour principle” in negligence law.

Question 7

Grant v Australian Knitting mills

Answer 7

Facts:

Dr. Richard Grant bought woolen underwear from Australian Knitting Mills.
After wearing the underwear for a week, he developed severe dermatitis due to a chemical irritant left in the fabric by the manufacturer.
Held:

The court found that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer and breached that duty by failing to remove the irritant.
This case reinforced the principle that manufacturers must take reasonable care to avoid harming consumers and clarified the elements of negligence: duty of care and breach of duty.

Question 8

Shaw DPP 1962?

Answer 8

Shaw v DPP (1962)

Facts:

The defendant published magazines with personal adverts for prostitutes, including contact details and service descriptions.
He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as well as living on the earnings of prostitution (Sexual Offences Act 1956) and publishing obscene articles (Obscene Publications Act 1959).
Held:

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court ruled it had the power to create the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals to protect societal welfare.
This case established that courts could recognize new offences not outlined in criminal statutes to adapt to evolving social standards.

Question 9

Knuller V DPP 1973?

Answer 9

Facts:

The defendant published a progressive magazine containing adverts from homosexuals seeking to meet for sexual activities.
The defendant was charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals, based on the precedent set in Shaw v DPP.
Held:

The House of Lords upheld the conviction, although they expressed doubt about the correctness of Shaw v DPP. However, they chose not to depart from the earlier decision, reaffirming the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

Question 10

Obiter Dicta?

Answer 10

Part of the judgement that x not form precedent but may be relevant to the case.

Could be used to explain what the decision of the case may have been if the facts were slightly different (hypothetical).

Cases: Hill V Baxter 1958, DPP for NI V Lynch 1975/ R v Howe 1987/R v Gotts 1992.

Question 11

Hill v Baxter 1958

Answer 11

Defendant (B): Charged with dangerous driving, claimed memory loss due to sudden illness.
Court’s Key Points:
Road Traffic Act 1930: No mens rea required for the offence.
Defence of Automatism: B had to prove automatism (a fact within his knowledge).
Automatism implies B did not understand the nature of his actions, similar to insanity.
No evidence of a “black-out”; his account suggested falling asleep or inattention.
Outcome: B held responsible; automatism not accepted, appeal dismissed.

Question 12

DPP for NI v Lynch 1975

Answer 12

Summary: Lynch, under duress, drove IRA members to a location where they killed a police officer. He claimed he acted out of fear for his life.

Held: Duress can be a defense to aiding and abetting murder, but not to the act of murder itself.

Question 13

R v Howe 1987

Answer 13

Summary: Howe, along with others, tortured and killed two people, including a 17-year-old victim, under orders. He claimed the defense of duress.

Held: The House of Lords ruled that duress is not a defense to murder, whether the defendant is the principal or a secondary party. This overruled the decision in Lynch (1975) regarding duress for secondary participants.

Question 14

R v Gotts 1992.

Answer 14

Summary: Gotts, a 16-year-old, was threatened by his father, who said he would shoot him if he did not kill his mother. Gotts attacked her, but she survived. He claimed the defense of duress.

Held: The Court of Appeal ruled that duress is not a defense to attempted murder, following the principle from Howe (1987) that duress cannot excuse involvement in killing.

Question 15

Other Important Terms: what does Original Precedent mean?

Answer 15

Where a judge forms a new precedent for future cases to follow if no point of law has ever been decided in case.

Cases: Donoghue v Stevenson 1932/Gillick v Norfolk and Wisbech Health authority 1986.

Question 16

Gillick v Norfolk and Wisbech Health authority 1986.

Answer 16

Facts: Mrs. Gillick sought a declaration that Department of Health guidance allowing doctors to provide contraceptive advice to under-16s without parental consent was unlawful.

Outcome: The House of Lords ruled that minors can consent to medical treatment if they have “sufficient understanding and intelligence” to fully comprehend what is proposed (now known as Gillick competence). Parental rights exist only to protect the child’s best interests.

Question 17

Binding Precedent?

Answer 17

This is when a judge has to follow what was decided in an earlier case.

This must be where the facts are similar enough to the original case.

Question 18

Perusuasive precedent?

Answer 18

Where a decision made by majority and 1 or more of the judges disagree.

These judges will explain why they disagree and this will also be included in the law report.

T

Question 19

R v R 1991

Answer 19

The case involved a husband who was charged with raping his wife. He argued that, under the law at the time, a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife due to the doctrine of marital consent.

Held: The House of Lords unanimously ruled that a husband can be convicted of raping his wife. The court abolished the marital rape exemption, establishing that consent must be present in marriage, just as in any other relationship. This landmark decision affirmed that a woman has the right to withdraw consent at any time, regardless of her marital status.