You can also find the Exam Thread list for A-levels here and GCSE here.
Just quoting in Puddles the Monkey so she can move the thread if needed
You might say that judicial precedent prevents judges from making law themselves because they are bound to follow the previous decisions of judges for similar cases. Which is good really, because it promotes consistency within the law.
A downfall for using precedent may be that it prevents judges from being creative or using discretion when determining an outcome of a case. Philosophers such as Hart suggest that judges should use discretion in cases of open texture. This will help iron out uncertainties. But Dworkin of course attacks this assumption.
I think you should also mention legal realism maybe.
You can disagree with the statement and argue that there have been instances in particular areas of law, where judges have abandoned precedent because they felt the facts of the case were dissimilar and created new rules? Use the example of R v Brown? And R v Wilson? This shows that judges are not bound to follow precedent like your question/statement suggests, they can if they want to, follow their own moral compasses and judicial freedom to determine a outcome of a case
Try and find reasons to support/agree with your statement but also attack it
Hope this helps!