Abolishing Bing Precedent

What would be the effect on English law if the doctrine of binding precedent was abolished?

Tom Funnell

The doctrine of precedent is the strict rules that bound judges when making decisions in cases which mark a change in the law. Then a binding precedent is a precedent made in a case, but the judge is obliged to follow.

It allows Judges to use references from other cases similar to come to a final conclusion, although for much change in sentence to be made the two cases must be distinguished effectively. It saves time for judges to come up with their own judgements, an makes if more appropriate to the convicted to be given a sentence similar to that of so one that has made a similar offence, with out a large differentiation in sentencing i.e. one man receiving 60 hours community service while another was sent to prison for 118 months. By abolishing the doctrine the judges would have to do their own long winded research, and then have to make a final judgement based on a solution they have put forward, with out solid backgrounds. This will then carry from judge to judge with similar cases, and so sentences will vary also.

Disadvantages of the current doctrine are that judgments that have been made previously may seem greatly out of proportion to current modern times, but the court has no ability to make any difference, because they may be too far down the hierarchy of courts to influence any one. It may be felt that a previous precedent was unfairly accumulated, and unjust. By abolishing such a doctrine each judge would be able to give a final judgement which they felt was fair considering the circumstances, instead of having to give a past decision.

Inclusion it appears that in some ways the courts would benefit from abolishing the doctrine of binding precedent, but also it would make some difficulties of its own. instead I