Judicial precedent in English law: principles, application and critique

This work has been verified by our teacher: 4.02.2026 at 9:17

Homework type: Essay

Added: 3.02.2026 at 15:58

Judicial Precedent in English Law: Principles, Applications, and Critiques

Judicial precedent, often referred to as case law, stands as a cornerstone of the English legal system. The doctrine embodies the idea that past judicial decisions should inform and, in certain circumstances, bind the outcomes of future cases featuring similar facts or legal issues. This process imbues the law with stability and predictability—qualities which are not only comforting to those governed by the law but also essential for the orderly administration of justice. However, at the heart of this system lies a tension: the need for certainty on the one hand and the need for adaptability on the other. Throughout this essay, I will explore the historical evolution of judicial precedent, explain its key mechanisms and operation within the hierarchical structure of the courts, and subject it to critical scrutiny by weighing its practicality and enduring relevance against its perceived shortcomings. Ultimately, this discussion will demonstrate that although judicial precedent is integral to the coherence of English law, it must remain sufficiently flexible to respond to the evolving needs of society.

---

I. Origins and Foundations of Judicial Precedent

The practical operation of precedent is mediated by the hierarchical court structure. Decisions of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court, are binding on all lower courts, while decisions of lower courts have no such effect. At the heart of each judgment lies the *ratio decidendi*—the legal principle derived from the court’s reasoning—which forms the binding element. In contrast, *obiter dicta*, comments made by judges which are not central to the outcome, serve only a persuasive role, guiding but not constraining future courts when an analogous point arises.

It must be acknowledged that judicial precedent does not operate in a vacuum. Statutory interpretation often requires judges to grapple with Acts of Parliament, and precedent can both illuminate and complicate these interpretative tasks. The gradual, case-by-case chipping away and clarification that precedent allows often fills in where legislation is ambiguous or silent, contributing to a dynamic, ever-evolving legal system.

---

II. The Role of the Supreme Court and House of Lords

A significant turning point arrived in 1966 with the Practice Statement, a modest but vital reform. Through this statement, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) formally acknowledged the need to depart, when appropriate, from prior decisions in the interests of justice or the proper development of the law. This increased the Court’s ability to correct past errors and align legal principles with contemporary values.

Yet the Practice Statement was—and remains—used with marked restraint. Notable examples include *Herrington v British Railways Board* [1972], where the Lords overturned their earlier position on occupiers’ liability to child trespassers in the face of changing social priorities. Another instance is *Conway v Rimmer* [1968], concerning public interest immunity. The prevailing ethos is that such departures should be the exception, not the rule, thereby preserving the consistency upon which public confidence in the judiciary rests.

Today, the Supreme Court carries forward this delicate balance: upholding the integrity of precedent while remaining, in principle, open to necessary evolution.

---

III. Judicial Precedent in the Court of Appeal

Crucially, the Court of Appeal is generally bound by its own previous decisions but recognises vital exceptions, articulated in *Young v Bristol Aeroplane* [1944]. These permit the Court to sidestep precedent where: (1) there are conflicting past decisions, (2) a previous decision was made per incuriam, or (3) the decision conflicts with a later Supreme Court judgment. For example, in *Davis v Johnson* [1979], the Court of Appeal boldly declined to follow its own earlier decision, while *Rickards v Rickards* [1989] strengthens the application of such exceptions.

The Criminal Division, dealing with matters of liberty, is occasionally more agile in departing from precedent, particularly to prevent injustice, as demonstrated in *R v Taylor* [1950]. Such pragmatic adjustments highlight the Court’s commitment to both legal certainty and fairness.

---

IV. Mechanisms for Avoiding or Modifying Precedent

Overruling is a more direct method, where a higher court rejects a legal principle established in an earlier case—sometimes reflecting social progress or correcting past judicial error. *R v Shivpuri* [1986]* is a case in point, where the Lords overruled their prior decision in *Anderton v Ryan* [1985] on the law of attempts.

*Reversing* differs subtly but importantly; it refers to a higher court rejecting the lower court’s judgment within the same litigation, altering the outcome for the parties involved rather than declaring a wider legal rule overturned.

While these mechanisms enable necessary adjustment and refinement, critics observe that they can give rise to uncertainty, making the boundaries between predictable law and judicial creativity difficult to discern.

---

V. Advantages of Judicial Precedent

Secondly, system-wide consistency and fairness are promoted: individuals in analogous situations should be treated similarly, reinforcing the principle of equality before the law. Precedent also complements statutory law by filling gaps and responding to particulars unforeseen by Parliament, exemplified by the tort of negligence’s evolution from *Donoghue v Stevenson* [1932]* onwards.

The articulation of *ratio decidendi* in numerous cases provides the law with fine detail and nuance. Mechanisms such as distinguishing and the Practice Statement preserve enough flexibility for the law to adjust to new realities, while the widespread application of established rules avoids constant re-litigation, thereby easing court backlogs and conserving resources.

---

VI. Disadvantages and Limitations of Judicial Precedent

The prolific stretching of factual distinctions in the name of *distinguishing* can lead to convoluted reasoning, undermining the coherence of legal principle. Moreover, progress can be markedly slow: courts must wait for suitable cases to materialise, delaying vital changes in law.

The Practice Statement, although welcome, is rarely invoked, and so, at times, legal injustices or outdated interpretations can continue longer than is desirable. All these aspects threaten to exclude non-specialists from engaging meaningfully with the law, making the system appear arcane and inaccessible.

---

VII. Contemporary Developments and Influences on Precedent

The digital revolution has greatly expanded access to case law archives and legal databases, such as BAILII, rendering the mountains of precedent more manageable for both professionals and the public. This development addresses, to some degree, past criticisms about inaccessibility.

Importantly, modern judicial culture in the Supreme Court and beyond increasingly favours a more critical gaze toward precedent, demonstrating greater willingness to reconsider settled positions where compelling reasons exist, especially as social attitudes evolve. Ongoing debates in legal academia propose reforms to further balance the virtues of certainty with the need for timely adaptation.

---

Conclusion