Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent - Essay Example In London Tramcars Co Ltd v London County Council2, Lord Halisbury ruled that when the House made a ruling on a 'point of law', it becomes 'conclusive upon the House afterwards, and it is impossible to raise that question again as if it was res integra and could be re-argued'. In short, the House of Lords cannot later undermine their own rulings on points of law. The issue can be debated again, but not res integra. In practice, this means that anyone coming before the House of Lords can argue prior precedent, and if that precedent applies, the House of Lords is powerless not to rule in their favor on that issue. â€Å"This coercive character of the doctrine of precedent is a feature peculiar to the English legal tradition†3. Even in the United States legal system, precedent is not absolutely binding, in two ways. 1. It is possible in the United States tradition to overturn precedent. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson...famous cases that changed the course of American law and juri sprudence involved overturning prior cases. 2. There is more leeway for precedent to be ruled non-binding or to be reinterpreted more carefully Judges in the British tradition are supposed to interpret law, not make law, even more so than in the United States system. The House of Lords only has the leeway to interpret law when there is no law already in place. Further, not only is precedent binding, but the English system is further peculiar because individual precedents are powerfully binding4. Even in the French and American traditions, lines of cases are interpreted and their varying precedents debated, but in the UK tradition, an individual case is understood and can â€Å"create a binding precedent, similar to a statute†. Beamish v. Beamish was a key case in establishing this doctrine, ironically itself an example of a single case creating binding precedent. Combined with the London Tramway case, it is only possible for precedent to be overturned by an act of Parliament, whose sovereignty cannot be undermined. One of the consequences of the increasing importance of precedent was that legal reporting and the documentation and maintenance of case law became far more important4 . It seems that the doctrine emerged as a reaction to parliamentary sovereignty4 . Prior to the emergence of the doctrine, only Parliament could make clear, consolidated law that was held within â€Å"four corners†, complete like a room. When the House of Lords makes a judicial opinion, it takes on the force of law and has statutory implications. People must abide by the regulation. If the House of Lords interprets that a particular environmental law applies to an industry, it has the effect of changing the enforcement as powerfully as an act of Parliament. One could in fact argue that the law of binding judicial precedent essentially elevates the court to the level of law, which is an important addition to Browne-Wilkinson's comment. How, then, can Browne-Wilkinson's co mment be interpreted? It points to several truths about the Commonwealth law that the doctrine of judicial binding precedent can obscure. First, previous Lords made those precedents and made those rulings. This means that, while from the modern perspective, law may be interpreted rather than created, it was created at one point, and will be created again whenever there are gaps. Second, in practice Lords do make law, the doctrine be damned. This is because it is up to the Lords themselves to determine if