- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
- Topics: 3
- Replies: 0
- ☆
Hi
Kindly please explain the following terms:
? Reversing – higher court reverses lower court decision in same case
? Overruling – higher court overrules lower court decision in diferent case
? Distinguishing – court avoids earlier precedent by distinguishing the factsThank you.
Ok, we’re in the area of judicial precedent and the fundamental concept that is involved is that of ratio decidendi
This involves judges in later cases having to follow the legal thinking of judges in earlier similar cases where the earlier case was decided in a court of same standing or a court of higher standing
Thus, a judge in the high court has to follow the decisions / thinking of another judge in a similar case that was heard in the high court or higher (court of appeal / supreme court)
However, to apply that rule rigidly could lead to injustices so there has to be some availability to avoid following that earlier case decision
Distinguishing is one such way of being able to avoid having to follow the decision of the earlier judge even though that earlier decision was from a court of higher authority
If the facts of the case being heard are not similar enough to the facts of the earlier case, then the later judge may feel justified in avoiding that earlier ratio decidendi
Reversing and over-ruling surely speak for themselves
A decision in the high court may be appealed to the court of appeal and the judges in the court of appeal reverse the decision of the high court judge
Over-ruling is where a judge in the high court has made a judgement (say 30 years ago) and a similar case is now brought to the courts. The high court judge that hears this new case is bound by the principles of ratio decidendi to follow the decision of the earlier high court judge
So this later high court judge, realising that his hands are tied, could well recommend that the case be taken to appeal and let the court of appeal judges decide that the earlier precedent is no longer sensible in the light of changes in (for example) society
30 years ago (at least in the UK) surrogacy was not even thought about (at least, not openly) and nor were matters such as same-sex relationships
To apply legal principles from 30 years ago would be to fail to recognise the latest developments in societal mores and thinking
OK?
- The topic ‘Ratio deicdendi queries’ is closed to new replies.