Legal system in Great Britain Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Legal system in Great Britain - Case Study workoutPrecedent brings consistency to the English legal system, in that two parapraxiss with similar material facts will be treated in the same manner. No legal system can be perceived as fair unless perpetuallyyone receives equal treatment. Predictability allows faithfulnessyers to advice their clients with many stage of certainty. Certainty is an important advantage from the existence of occasion. A pronounce may be prevented from making a mistake, which he or she might have made if in that location were non any guidance available. However, some may palpate that treating two cases alike doesnt allow for untold freedom and rigidity is formed, inhibiting the maturation of the law and therefore giving the impression that the law of precedent is nonindulgent and inflexible. A criticism against the law of precedent is the fact that it can actually lead to a degree of rigidity in the system. Nevertheless, a prove may avoid keep companying a previous close in various ways. A judge may be able to distinguish an earlier case from the present case on its facts and thus avoid following it. No two cases will ever be identical in every way. The cases of Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 and Smith (1959) 2 A11 ER 193illustrate a real life example of distinguishing two separate cases from one another. They may seem at first to be alike in many ways, but when the facts are investigated fully, its becomes obvious that they are actually different. This indicates that separate precedents would study to be used. A judge could avoid using a precedent because he or she effectuate the ratio too obscure or the previous decision was per incuriam i.e. by mistake and without all the facts. Reversing occurs where a court higher up in the hierarchy overturns the decision of a lower court on appeal in the same case. The House of Lords has since 1966 indicated that it is actually prepared not follow its previous decisions if they f eel that injustice will occur or there will be unreasonable restriction of the development of the law. Its own previous decisions as well as those by the House of Lords will bind the coquette of Appeal, but there are two main exceptions to this rule. The court will choose which decision to follow if there are two conflicting decisions and will not follow one of its own decisions if it is ill-matched with a decision of the House of Lords or the Privacy. Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1975) 3 A11 ER 801.Where a judge can actually avoid using a precedent it can be seen that the law of precedent is not as strict and inflexible as the title and some peoples opinions may suggest. However some judges (particularly in the Lords) have been, at times (and to an extent still are - holding decisions to be wrong, but not refusing to overrule them) very strict in their adherence to stare decisis i.e. they do not care whether a decision is right or wrong, just or unjust. This can be se en as a big disadvantage as it means to say that judges have too much causality at times and a bad precedent can be ignored which would make the law strict and inflexible at times. Other advantages include how it is applicable to all future cases and is immediately operational.It is verbalise that the legal system is regulated by constitutional conventions, whereas the truth is that those