THE DOCTRINE OF BINDING PRECEDENT

According to the doctrine of precedent judges must follow previous decisions in future similar cases. Also known as doctrine of '' STARE DECISIS'' stand by what has been decided.

ADVANTAGES :

• Makes law certain, consistent and predictable.
• Makes law easier to follow.
• Parties coming to court knows what to expect from court.
• Useful time saving devices.

DISADVANTAGES :

• One  bad decision lead to so many others.
• Judges may  draw illogical distinctions.
• Makes law rigid and  inflexible.
• Slow down the development of law, since only 50% of the cases are heard in supreme court.

There are three types of precedents :

1) Original Precedent :
     Is law that is laid down where there is no previous decision on a point of law to follow.

2) Binding Precedent :
    Is law that has already been laid down in a previous case that has to be followed in similar cases.

3) Persuasive Precedent :
    Is not binding but can be followed.

There are two parts to judges judgement :

1) RATIO DECIDEND :
    Legal reasons that the judge gives for reaching his decision. This part forms binding precedent.

2) OBITER DICTA :
   By the way statements made by a judge when giving his judgement. This is not binding but can persuasive

For doctrine of binding precedent to operate 2 conditions must be followed:

1) There must be clear hierarchy of court structure and past cases must be recorded properly.

Clear recording of past cases can be obtained as law reports are  available on internet..
Each inferior court must follow the previous decisions of the superior court.

2) House Of Lords is not bound by it's own previous decisions unless one of three exemptions are          made

1. If previous decision of Court Of Appeal is conflicting with previous decisions of House Of Lords.
2. If there are two conflicting decisions of Court of Appeal itself it will choose one which is going to followed in future.
3. The Court Of Appeal can refuse it's previous decisions if it was made through lack of care ( per incurum )

A lower court is not bound to follow the decision of higher courts of the proposition of law was assumed to exist and was not subject to argument or consideration by that court. Precedent binds the divisional court in the same way as Court Of Appeal. House of Lords and Court of Appeal but not bound by it's own decisions. The decisions of Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates Courts  are not binding because they are to follow decisions of superior courts.

There are two International Courts and their  decisions bind all UK courts.

1. The European Court of Justice.
2. The European Court of Human Rights. 

If UK leaves European Union, these are no longer binding. Privy Council is also an International Court but it's decisions are not binding. 

A Judge may avoid following precedent in one of four ways:

1) DISTINGUISHING :
    By finding a material difference in two cases.

2) Overruling :
    A court must have the power to overrule its's previous wrongful decisions.

3) Disapproving :
    A decisions that is disapproved by a higher court is unlikely to be followed in the future.

4) Reversing :
    A higher Court  can reverse the decision of a lower Court so that it is not followed again.

When new facts come to light and there is no Precedent to follow, judges may create a new law as they did in ANHST V BLAND. Hence to conclude, Doctrine of Precedent does make law certain but it also slows down the development of law.