The Ddoctrine of Judicial Precedent depends on the Hierarchy of the Essay

The Ddoctrine of Judicial Precedent depends on the Hierarchy of the Courts - Essay Example In case similar cases emerge in the prospect, similar rules or rationale is utilized in conveying justice through legal decisions. The doctrine finds basis on stare decisis meaning that considering previous decision made on similar cases. A decision made at some point in law is considered applicable to cases that bear similar facts. For the doctrine to function in an effective manner, it is necessitated that point of law within certain cases is established. During conveyance of justice, the judge ought to offer the rationale under which he or she provides certain judgment and not another. The doctrine presents general rule where all courts are required to follow the same rationale in delivering decisions that were developed in courts that bear higher ranks (Mitchell & Dadhania 2003, 61). The doctrine is reliant on the chain of command of the court system, previous case records and the attitude or approaches that the judges utilize. The hierarchy of the court system in the English con text offers a better comprehension of precedent doctrine. The courts are organized, in terms of their capabilities or power, to command. The hierarchical structure bears five divisions under which the precedent is applied. These divisions offer judgments in relation to the cases carried out in previously from a superior court. The precedents that transpire in higher courts are considered applicable to lower and middle courts without any doubt. Therefore, decisions undertaken can be carried out without further probe into the cases, as long as the material facts and other facts are almost similar to another case undertaken in the past (Mitchell & Dadhania 2003, 62). The doctrine is reliant on the hierarchy that the court system presents in all its operations. Every court bears a given standing in relation to certain cases with respect to other courts thus affecting the provision of decisions on certain cases. These hierarchical systems ought to be considered in making decisions that i nvolve the precedent doctrine. The lower courts can comfortably apply decisions presented by the highest ranked courts. Similarly, decisions that emanate from House of Lords are applicable to the rest of the courts within the legal arrangement with the exemption of the House of Lords (Kennedy 1994, 1). Therefore, its decisions find appliances to all systems of legal arrangements but the decisions made by the house cannot be applied to cases that concern it. Supreme Court is considered top in the rank with regard to the legal arrangement prevalent in English Law. Previously, the Supreme Court functioned as the House of Lords although this was changed in 2009 (OUP 2011, 11). However, the powers were never altered meaning that only the name changed. The Supreme Court comprises of 12 justices with fives of these being independent of any previous precedents. That is they are not bound to pursue decisions made in any previous cases. In addition, their judgments are applicable to the rest of courts that lie below them. In practicality, justices in this legal level are likely to follow their decisions that they had previous offered in similar cases. In order for them to change their personal judgments, a vivid reason ought to crop up. Additionally, these justices preside over judgments from Commonwealth nations. Under such circumstance, the justices are considered as the Privy Council (OUP 2011, 11). In principle, the decisions developed by the Privy Council find no application in