|
Advantages
- old and outdated laws can be replaced- allows law to develop slowly as society changes. E.g. in R V R, this reflects societies support of right of women
- prevents cases being decided unjustly if precedents have evidently been made per incuriam or in error- where an error has been made judges can correct it there and then to avoid an unjust result. This is particularly important if the defendant would otherwise gone to prison. The court of appeal criminal division can overrule their own precedents
- Quicker for judges to change the law compared to parliament- parliament doesn't have time to review all points of law and even where it does so this has to be done by the legislative process which is lengthy and slow. meanwhile defendants would be subject to unfair law.
|
Disadvantages
- removes certainty and predictability- if judges can refuse to follow precedent this removes the certainty and predictability of the system. It becomes possible for the even dents to be treated differently which is unfair. For legal system to be just it should treat all people the same.
- Judges usurping parliaments role as a law maker- A judges role is primarily as a law enforcer which suggests that judges should follow existing law. where judges avoid precedent they are effectively making a new law which is truly the role of parliament as the elected body. Law made by the judges is effectively undemocratic as judges are not elected.
- practice statement only applies to the Supreme Court- very few cases are given leave the o appeal to the Supreme Court and so therefore very few cases reach the Supreme Court. It has been argued that the practice statement should apply of the CofA as in reality this is the final appeal court for most cases. As they are unable to overrule their own decisions old and outdated law will not be changed and unjusices may occur
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made