judicial precedent Watch

saif1979
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
I need to argue that judicial precedent do not allow judges to making law themselves. I have no idea how to write an essay on it
0
reply
TSR Jessica
  •  Official Rep
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Sorry you've not had any responses about this. Are you sure you've posted in the right place? Here's a link to our subject forum which should help get you more responses if you post there.

You can also find the Exam Thread list for A-levels here and GCSE here. :dumbells:


Just quoting in Puddles the Monkey so she can move the thread if needed
Spoiler:
Show
(Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
x
0
reply
Abstract_Prism
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
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.
2
reply
laurajadexo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by saif1979)
I need to argue that judicial precedent do not allow judges to making law themselves. I have no idea how to write an essay on it
Judges have to follow precedent, and therefore they're not actually making the law themselves. Merely following a previous decision.
0
reply
ShanLouise1997
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
is it one of the essays in law 04?
0
reply
Brandon.1219
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by saif1979)
I need to argue that judicial precedent do not allow judges to making law themselves. I have no idea how to write an essay on it
Just include a flow chart of the courts hierarchy for judicial precedent and state what each court does and why each court does not allow judges to make law themselves which will then go on about the previous decision etc.
0
reply
AthiaKarim
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Abstract_Prism)
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.
Yes I would go with something along these lines. Precedent allows the law to be more certain and consistent.
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!
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Brunel University London
    Undergraduate Experience Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Feb '19
  • Swansea University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Feb '19
  • De Montfort University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 16 Feb '19

Do you give blood?

Yes (31)
11.03%
I used to but I don't now (10)
3.56%
No, but I want to start (104)
37.01%
No, I am unable to (59)
21%
No, I chose not to (77)
27.4%

Watched Threads

View All