Judicial Precedence

Question 1 a. A judge must stick to either decision made by a high beg in a case with similar satisfying facts. These decisions ar made dustatically according to the doctrine of binding precession. This doctrine of binding precedence of stare decisis in Latin, is a scheme where previous decisions if superior court bind another(prenominal) courts in subsequent similar cases. For example, if the Federal tourist court (Superior crunch in Malaysia) decided that a minor is not susceptible under contract. If a minor is sued in the High act for not fulfilling his obligation in a contract, the High hail go out follow this previous decision of the Federal Court. When a Judge hands down a decision, he as well has to kick down the reasons for his decision. This means we get the point of law (the distinctness we have to follow) as well as the facts and other things. If (in the appeallate courts) a judge disagrees with the majority decision, then they will also condition up to write a report which explains why they disagree. Although this nonage fantasy doesnt have any binding power, it superpower be very persuasive in the future case. The advantages of: * there is conclusion in the law.

By looking at vivacious precedents it is viable to forecast what a decision will be and see accordingly. * there is uniformity in the law. Similar cases will be treated in the same way. This is important to give the system a sense of justice and to make the system satisfactory to the public. * Judicial precedent is flexible. There are a repress of ways to avoid precedents and this enables the system to change and to h! old to sensitive situations. * Judicial precedent is practical in nature. It is found on real facts, unlike legislation. * Judicial precedent is detailed. There is a wealth of cases to which to refer.If you want to get a wide-eyed essay, aim it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper