Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    •  Official Rep
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
     Official Rep
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    is it one of the essays in law 04?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.