Law Unit 3 (1)

Published on
Embed video
Share video
Ask about this video

Scene 1 (0s)

Law Unit 3: Section 3.1 The common law and the doctrine of binding precedent The Doctrine of Judicial Precedent in Common Law Judicial precedent, also known as "case law," is a fundamental principle of the common law legal system. It refers to the practice where judges rely on past judicial decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts, promoting certainty, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making. This doctrine means that when a judge is deciding a case, they are bound to follow the precedent of previous cases, especially those from higher courts, when deciding new cases with similar facts. The Principle of Stare Decisis Judicial precedent operates on the Latin principle of stare decisis, which means “to stand by what has been decided.” This principle requires courts to follow their own past decisions if made by a court of equal or higher authority for consistency and follow decisions from higher courts because of the hierarchy of courts. By doing so, the legal system maintains consistency and fairness, ensuring that the law does not change arbitrarily. Hierarchy of Courts in Judicial Precedent places the Supreme Court above all thereby it has the highest authority in setting binding precedents then the Court of Appeal which follows Supreme Court decisions but can establish binding precedents for lower courts. Lastly, the High Court & Lower Courts who are bound by decisions of higher courts but can sometimes set precedents in their own jurisdiction. The Benefits of Judicial Precedent Consistency in the Law - Consistency is a core value in the legal system. It ensures that similar cases are treated in a similar manner, which is essential for the fair administration of justice. Without precedent, courts might issue contradictory rulings on similar issues, leading to confusion and potential injustice. Predictable legal outcomes also enable individuals and businesses to arrange their affairs accordingly. Certainty and Predictability - The predictability that comes with following precedent allows legal professionals to advise clients with confidence regarding their legal position. This means that claimants and defendants can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case before going to court. Predictability in the law helps to reduce unnecessary legal actions, preventing costly and time- consuming legal disputes. Efficiency in the Legal System - Following precedent saves court time and resources by allowing judges to rely on previous rulings, rather than having to re-examine the same legal questions repeatedly. This makes the legal system more efficient and cost-effective. Judicial Comity- Judicial comity refers to the mutual respect judges have for each other’s decisions. Even when not strictly required to follow a previous ruling, a judge may still choose to do so out of respect for the reasoning of another court. This fosters coherence within the legal system and helps maintain a stable and authoritative body of case law..

Scene 2 (1m 55s)

[Audio] Today, we will be discussing the challenges and criticisms of Judicial Precedent, also known as "case law." This legal principle promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making by requiring judges to follow past decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts, based on the Latin principle of stare decisis. However, there are some flaws with this system. The requirement to follow past decisions can make the law rigid and slow to adapt to new societal changes. This inflexibility may lead to unjust outcomes in cases where a precedent is outdated or no longer suitable. Additionally, a wrong decision made in the past can continue to influence future cases, potentially leading to incorrect or outdated precedents. As social attitudes and values evolve, some precedents may no longer reflect modern views, creating discrepancies in the application of the law. Moreover, the sheer number of cases in common law jurisdictions can lead to conflicting precedents, making it challenging for judges to determine which ruling to follow and causing legal uncertainty. The complexity of case law is also a concern, as it can be difficult for lawyers and judges to find the most relevant case law. This can make certain areas of law overcomplicated and difficult for non-lawyers to understand their rights and obligations. To navigate this complex web of precedents, judges use the concept of ratio decidendi, which is the binding part of a precedent. This ensures that future cases are decided consistently with past cases, upholding the doctrine of judicial precedent. In practice, judges must carefully examine individual judgments and identify the binding element of a precedent..

Scene 3 (3m 51s)

[Audio] Slide number 3 discusses the concept of obiter dicta, which are non-binding comments or observations made by a judge in a case. These statements do not carry the same weight as the binding legal principle, known as the ratio decidendi. However, they can still hold persuasive authority and provide valuable legal reasoning and principles. It should be noted that statements made by senior courts, such as the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, are generally given more weight than those made by lower courts. Obiter dicta may explore hypothetical situations or alternative legal arguments, which can offer insights and considerations for future cases. They can also lead to the development of new legal principles or be used in cases without binding precedent. In fact, many important legal doctrines have stemmed from obiter dicta and have later been adopted as binding law in future cases, highlighting their impact and significance. These remarks by judges not only shape the development of law, but they are also used in arguments for law reform or reinterpretation by judges and legal scholars. In summary, while not legally binding, obiter dicta still hold significant persuasive authority and play a crucial role in the evolution of our legal system..

Scene 4 (5m 16s)

[Audio] Judicial precedent, also known as "case law," is a significant element in our legal system as it promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making. This is achieved through the requirement for judges to follow past decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts, based on the Latin principle of stare decisis, which means "let the decision stand." Additionally, this principle establishes a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest authority. An example of the operation of judicial precedent can be seen in the 1932 case of Donoghue v Stevenson. In this case, Mrs. Donoghue and her friend visited a café in Scotland, where her friend ordered a bottle of ginger beer. However, upon receiving the drink, they found a decomposed snail inside. As a result, Mrs. Donoghue claimed she suffered shock and illness and sued the manufacturer for negligence, despite their lack of contractual agreement. The legal issue before the court was whether a manufacturer could be held liable for harm caused to an ultimate consumer due to negligence in the manufacturing process, even without a contract. In a 3-2 majority ruling, the House of Lords sided with Mrs. Donoghue, establishing the binding legal principle, or ratio decidendi, that a manufacturer has a duty of care towards the ultimate consumer and must ensure their products do not cause harm. This duty applies even without a direct contractual relationship. There was also an obiter dicta, or a judge's opinion that was not essential to the decision, in this case. Lord Atkin's "neighbor principle" states that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid harm to their neighbors. While this principle was not necessary for deciding the Donoghue case, it later influenced the development of negligence law and became binding in subsequent cases. In conclusion, judicial precedent is a fundamental aspect of our legal system that promotes consistency and fairness and holds manufacturers accountable for their products, ultimately ensuring the well-being of consumers..

Scene 5 (7m 35s)

[Audio] We will be discussing the fundamental principle of judicial precedent, known as "case law," and its importance in promoting consistency, fairness, and efficiency in decision-making. Our focus will be on section 3.2, which explains the concept of binding precedent in specific courts. Binding precedent, also referred to as stare decisis, requires courts to follow established legal principles from previous cases. This ensures consistency and predictability in decision-making and promotes fairness in the application of the law. Lower courts are bound to follow decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction, as well as their own previous decisions, unless a valid legal reason allows them to depart from them. A binding precedent remains in effect until either a higher court overturns it, indicating a new precedent, or the Parliament changes the law, modifying or abolishing the previous legal rule created by the case. In cases where a court needs to avoid following a binding precedent, there are certain judicial tools that can be used. One of these methods is overruling, when a higher court overturns the legal principle established in an earlier case. This can occur if the higher court believes the earlier case was wrongly decided or no longer reflects current legal principles. The new decision by the higher court becomes the binding precedent. Another method is distinguishing, where a court identifies a material difference between the current case and the previous case, and therefore, the legal principle does not apply. This allows the court to make a different decision without overruling the previous precedent. In conclusion, the doctrine of binding precedent is essential in promoting consistency, fairness, and efficiency in decision-making. It ensures the uniform application of the law and helps maintain stability in the legal system..

Scene 6 (9m 33s)

[Audio] We will be discussing the concept of distinguishing cases in the context of judicial precedent. Judicial precedent, or case law, plays a critical role in ensuring consistency and fairness in legal decision-making. It is based on the principle of stare decisis, which requires judges to follow past decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts. Additionally, it establishes a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest authority. Let's examine two examples to better understand the concept of distinguishing cases. In the case of Balfour v Balfour (1919), a husband promised to pay his wife a monthly allowance while they were living apart. However, the wife sued him for breach of contract when the husband stopped fulfilling his promise. The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no enforceable contract because the agreement was made in a domestic setting without an intention to create legal relations. This judgment was based on the presumption that family and domestic agreements do not intend to create legal relations. In contrast, the case of Merritt v Merritt (1970) was distinguished from Balfour v Balfour as the husband and wife had already separated when their agreement was made. The agreement was in writing, with the husband promising to transfer the house into his wife's name once she paid off their mortgage. After the wife fulfilled her part of the agreement, the husband refused to transfer the house. The court held this agreement to be legally binding because it was made when the couple was not living together, and the terms were in writing, indicating an intention to be legally bound. The key difference between these cases is the presence or absence of a legally binding intention and the context in which the agreement was made. Balfour v Balfour was made in a domestic setting, while Merritt v Merritt was made after the couple had already separated. In Balfour, the court did not consider the agreement to be a contract due to the lack of intention to create legal relations, while in Merritt, the court held it to be a legally binding contract due to the present intention..

Scene 7 (11m 49s)

[Audio] Slide number 7 focuses on the concept of persuasive precedent. Judicial precedent is a fundamental principle in legal decision-making that promotes consistency and fairness. However, there are types of precedents that are not binding on judges, but can still influence their decisions. These are known as persuasive precedents. Judges are expected to justify their reasons for not following a persuasive precedent. Sources of persuasive precedents include decisions from lower courts, such as the Court of Appeal, which may be considered and followed by higher courts, like the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, although not part of the formal court hierarchy in England and Wales, hold a high level of persuasion due to the fact that its judges also serve on the Supreme Court. Obiter dicta statements, which are comments made by judges in previous cases that are not part of the legal reasoning, can also serve as persuasive precedents. Additionally, dissenting judgments, where one or more judges disagree with the majority decision, can also provide alternative legal reasoning that may be adopted in later cases. Lastly, decisions of foreign courts, particularly from Commonwealth countries and other common law jurisdictions, can also serve as persuasive precedents in English courts..

Scene 8 (13m 17s)

[Audio] Slide number 8 focuses on the concept of "remoteness of damage" in tort law, which is determined by the principle of foreseeability. This means that a defendant can only be held liable for harm if it was foreseeable at the time of their wrongful act. The question of how much of the claimant's damage a defendant should be responsible for is central to this principle. In the past, the rule was that a defendant was liable for all direct consequences of their negligent conduct, regardless of how unexpected or unusual. However, later cases added nuance, stating that a defendant is only liable if the type of damage was foreseeable. Some key cases, such as Re Polemis in 1921 and The Wagon Mound (No. 1) in 1961, have shaped the concept of remoteness of damage..

Scene 9 (14m 22s)

[Audio] Judicial precedent, or case law, is essential in the legal system as it ensures consistency, fairness, and efficiency. This is achieved by requiring judges to follow previous decisions when determining new cases with similar facts. This practice is based on the Latin principle of stare decisis, which translates to "let the decision stand." Additionally, it establishes a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court holding the highest authority. A notable case that highlights the significance of judicial precedent is Hughes v Lord Advocate, which was settled in 1963. This case involved a group of negligent workers from the Post Office who left an open manhole unattended on the street. The manhole was covered by a canvas tent and surrounded by paraffin warning lamps. As a result, two young boys entered the tent out of curiosity and one of them accidentally knocked a lamp into the hole, causing a violent explosion. The boy suffered severe burns as a result of the explosion. In this case, the House of Lords ruled that the defendants were liable for the harm caused. Although the explosion itself may have been unforeseeable, the type of damage, in this case, burns, was reasonably foreseeable. The court emphasized that a defendant can be held liable if the kind of harm suffered was foreseeable, even if the way it occurred was unusual. This case further refined the Wagon Mound principle by addressing whether a defendant could be liable if the type of harm was foreseeable, even if the specific event was unforeseeable. This ruling established key legal principles that are still relevant today. It overruled the previous case of Re Polemis (1921), which held that a defendant was liable for all direct consequences of their negligence, regardless of foreseeability. Instead, the Wagon Mound (No. 1) case (1961) introduced a foreseeability test for the remoteness of damage. This means that a defendant is only responsible if the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable. Hughes v Lord Advocate further reinforced the Wagon Mound principle, clarifying that foreseeability applies to the type of damage, even if the exact way it occurred was unexpected. This case exemplifies the role of judicial law-making, where judges not only apply the law but also establish new legal principles. In conclusion, judicial precedent is a fundamental aspect of the legal system that promotes consistency and fairness..

Scene 10 (16m 58s)

[Audio] Judicial precedent, also known as case law, is a crucial element in the legal system. It promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making. This is achieved through the principle of stare decisis, which requires judges to follow past decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts. Furthermore, it establishes a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest authority. In 1932, the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson caused a significant shift in negligence law. The facts of the case were as follows: Mrs. Donoghue's friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a café in Scotland. Mrs. Donoghue later found a decomposed snail in the remaining contents of the bottle, which caused her severe health issues. As she had not purchased the bottle herself, she was unable to sue for breach of contract and instead sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence. The case introduced the famous Neighbour Principle, which laid the foundation for modern negligence law. It states that "you must not injure your neighbour" and poses the question, "Who is my neighbour?" This principle has been refined in subsequent cases and continues to shape the concept of duty of care. The impact of this case was immense, as it created a new precedent and established a general duty of care in negligence. It was a major shift in common law, as previously there was no such duty of care. The "neighbour test" introduced in this case was further refined in later decisions and continues to shape modern negligence law. This case also expanded liability beyond contractual relationships, ensuring that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the consumers of their products. Ultimately, the case of Donoghue v Stevenson serves as a reminder of the power and significance of judicial precedent in shaping the legal landscape and promoting fairness..

Scene 11 (19m 3s)

[Audio] Judicial precedent, also known as "case law," is a crucial aspect of the legal system. It promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making by requiring judges to follow past decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts. This principle is known as stare decisis. The hierarchy of courts further ensures that decisions made by the highest court have a binding effect on lower courts. Section 3.3 of our presentation will focus on the concept of binding precedent in specific courts. The doctrine of precedent states that courts must follow legal principles established in earlier cases, especially those decided by higher courts in the hierarchy. This not only guarantees consistency and predictability in the law, but also avoids conflicting decisions on the same legal issue. In the UK court hierarchy, the Supreme Court holds the highest authority and binds all other courts in the English legal system. Previously known as the House of Lords, the judicial functions of the Supreme Court were transferred to it in 2009 by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Supreme Court typically follows its own precedents to maintain consistency and stability in the law. However, it has the power to depart from its previous decisions if they were wrongly decided or if changing circumstances make it necessary to do so. This ability is granted by the Practice Statement of 1966. Moving onto the Court of Appeal, it is bound by the decisions made by the Supreme Court and must follow them. It is also generally bound by its own previous decisions, but there are exceptions where it may depart from its earlier rulings. In simpler terms, the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts while being bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. However, there are exceptions to this rule. One such exception is when there are conflicting decisions by the Court of Appeal on the same legal issue. In this case, the court can choose which decision to follow. Additionally, if the Supreme Court has made a decision that contradicts an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal, the lower court can be considered "impliedly overruled". In conclusion, the concept of binding precedent is essential in the legal system as it promotes consistency and predictability in legal decisions..

Scene 12 (21m 33s)

[Audio] Judicial precedent, also known as case law, is a fundamental principle in legal systems around the world. It promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in decision-making by requiring judges to follow previous decisions when deciding new cases with similar facts. This practice is based on the Latin principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided." The highest authority in the hierarchy of courts is the Supreme Court, but in Commonwealth countries, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council holds even more power. Although its decisions are not strictly binding on UK courts, they are treated with the same respect as those of the Supreme Court. The European Court of Human Rights has a different role, focusing on violations of civil and political rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its decisions are binding on the countries involved, and human rights have become part of UK domestic law since the Human Rights Act of 1998. While UK courts must consider these decisions, they are not obligated to follow them. It is important to note that the ECtHR is not bound by its own previous decisions, unlike domestic courts. This allows for the possibility of change in approach in future cases, although it generally follows its previous decisions unless there is a good reason not to. In 1966, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) issued the Practice Statement, which gave the court the flexibility to overrule its own previous decisions when necessary. This was a significant development, as it allowed for necessary legal evolution. Before this, the House of Lords was always bound by its past decisions, as seen in the London Street Tramways v London County Council case in 1898. While this ensured legal certainty, it also hindered necessary legal progress. Since the introduction of the Practice Statement, the Supreme Court has been cautious in using this power, recognizing the importance of legal certainty. It is not frequently used in criminal cases, where certainty is crucial. However, in cases such as R v Shivpuri, the court has shown a willingness to correct serious errors in the law. In summary, judicial precedent is a vital foundation of legal systems, promoting consistency, fairness, and efficiency in decision-making. It plays an essential role in ensuring legal evolution while also maintaining necessary legal certainty..

Scene 13 (24m 18s)

[Audio] authority" Slide 13: In the world of law, judicial precedent is a key principle that promotes consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making. This principle requires judges to follow past decisions when handling new cases with similar facts. The concept of stare decisis, which means "to stand by what has been decided," is at the core of judicial precedent. It establishes a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court having the highest authority to ensure consistent and lawful decisions. Moving on to civil cases, let us take a look at the case of British Railways Board v Herrington (1972). In this case, a child trespasser was severely burned on an electrified railway line, as they accessed the land through a gap in a fence that the defendants were aware of but failed to repair. The legal issue at hand was whether an occupier of land owes a duty of care to a trespasser, particularly a child. The House of Lords overturned the previous decision of Addie v Dumbreck (1929) and stated that occupiers have a duty of "common humanity" and must take reasonable steps to prevent harm to trespassers, especially children. When examining the facts of this case, the material facts to note are the child's injury, the gap in the fence, and the defendants' knowledge of the risk. The fact that the child was a trespasser is not considered material, as the law has evolved to recognize a duty of care towards them. In the case of Anns v Merton LBC (1978), the plaintiffs claimed compensation for structural damage to their flats due to inadequate foundations. They sued the local authority for negligently failing to inspect the foundations. The legal issue here was whether a local authority owes a duty of care to individuals when exercising its powers. The House of Lords' decision was that the local authority could be held liable for negligence in failing to properly inspect the foundations. The material facts in this case include the structural damage and the local authority..

Scene 14 (26m 37s)

[Audio] Slide number 14 discusses the role of legislation and legislative interpretation in the English legal system. Statutes, or laws passed by Parliament, are a primary source of law, but their meanings are not always clear, requiring the judiciary to interpret them. This process is known as statutory interpretation. The main responsibility of judges in this task is to give effect to Parliament's intention. However, this can be challenging due to the ambiguity of language and the evolving nature of words over time, resulting in inconsistent rulings by different judges. Unclear legislative intent can further complicate the interpretation process, requiring judges to use specific techniques to determine the most reasonable meaning. These challenges with statutory interpretation are often rooted in issues with drafting statutes. Despite being drafted by legal experts, Acts of Parliament can still contain unclear or complex wording, leading to unintended gaps. When these statutes are brought before the courts, judges must use statutory interpretation to resolve these issues. It is essential to note the role of the judiciary in this process, as it upholds the principle of the separation of powers, ensuring a balance of power among different branches of government. Overall, the English legal system relies on judicial precedent and statutory interpretation to promote consistency, fairness, and efficiency in legal decision-making. The judiciary shoulders the task of interpretation, navigating through challenges to ensure a successful and just legal system..

Scene 15 (28m 25s)

[Audio] Slide number 15 of our presentation on judicial precedent discusses the primary method of statutory interpretation, the literal rule. This approach requires judges to give the words of a statute their plain and ordinary meaning, even if it may result in an unfair outcome. It is preferred for its respect for parliamentary sovereignty, certainty and predictability in legal rulings. However, it also has the potential for unjust outcomes and assumes perfect drafting, as seen in the case of Berriman. This preference for the literal rule was famously expressed by Lord Esher in the case of R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892). A notable case example is the London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman, where the court's literal interpretation of the Fatal Accidents Act led to Mrs. Berriman's unsuccessful claim for compensation for her husband's death. It is important to carefully consider the potential drawbacks of the literal rule in promoting a fair and just legal system..

Scene 16 (29m 35s)

[Audio] Slide number sixteen in our presentation will focus on the golden rule, an important principle in legal decision-making. Judicial precedent dictates that judges must follow previous decisions in similar cases in order to promote consistency, fairness, and efficiency in the legal system. This is based on the Latin principle of stare decisis, or "to stand by things decided." Additionally, a hierarchy of courts has been established with the Supreme Court holding the highest authority. The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule and is applied when a strict interpretation of a statute would lead to absurd or illogical results. It recognizes that a literal interpretation may lead to unfair or unintended outcomes and allows for minor modifications to avoid this. Judges always begin with the literal meaning, but if it would create absurdity, they may modify the wording to align with the statute's purpose. This approach allows for a more flexible and common-sense interpretation of laws. The golden rule has several advantages, including preventing unjust outcomes by considering the intended purpose of a statute. It also respects the wording of Parliament while allowing for necessary modifications. However, there are limitations to this rule, as it is only used in rare cases and there are no clear guidelines on when it should be applied. To better understand the golden rule, let us look at a case example. In Adler v George (1964), a man was arrested for obstructing Her Majesty's Forces within a prohibited place. The Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct forces "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place. The man argued that he was not "in the vicinity" of the base because he was inside it. The court had to determine whether "in the vicinity of" included being inside the prohibited place. In their decision, the court applied the golden rule and extended the wording to include "in or in the vicinity of," thus finding the man guilty..

Scene 17 (31m 44s)

[Audio] The case of Smith v Hughes involved the interpretation of the Street Offences Act 1959, which stated that soliciting in a street or public place was prohibited. The judges applied the mischief rule to understand the problem that Parliament was trying to solve with this legislation. They considered previous laws and recognized that prostitutes would often solicit from windows or doorways, making it difficult to enforce the law. This was the "mischief," or issue, that the Act was intended to address. The judges then looked at the remedy introduced by the Act, concluding that it applied to solicitation from any place visible from the street, including buildings. The true reason for this remedy was to prevent solicitation from being easily hidden from police officers. The use of the mischief rule has both advantages and disadvantages. It allows judges to address the underlying problem and ensure a just outcome, but it also carries the risk of judicial law-making and uncertainty in interpretation. In summary, the mischief rule is a valuable tool for judges in interpreting statutes, but it must be used carefully to avoid potential drawbacks..

Scene 18 (33m 0s)

[Audio] Legal precedent, or previous court cases, is essential for maintaining consistency, fairness, and efficiency in the legal system. This requires judges to follow previous decisions when deciding similar cases, based on the principle of stare decisis. The court system has a hierarchy, with the Supreme Court being the highest authority in interpreting laws. One approach to interpreting laws is the purposive approach, which focuses on determining Parliament's intentions behind the law rather than just the wording of the statute. This approach contrasts with the literal rule, which prioritizes the exact wording of the law. The literal interpretation of laws can lead to unjust or unintended consequences. The purposive approach, influenced by the European Court of Justice, allows judges to fill in any gaps in the law and ensure that the legislation aligns with Parliament's broader goals. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach, such as the potential for judicial overreach and the time-consuming process of determining Parliament's intentions. An example of the purposive approach is seen in the case of Magor & St Mellons RDC v Newport Corporation (1950), where Lord Denning applied the approach to fill in gaps in the law and achieve its true purpose. In conclusion, the purposive approach to statutory interpretation is crucial in ensuring that laws align with their intended purpose. Though it has drawbacks, its benefits are significant..

Scene 19 (34m 37s)

[Audio] Slide number 19 of our presentation on judicial precedent discusses how the Human Rights Act of 1998, also known as the HRA, affects the interpretation of laws. Section 3 of the HRA requires courts to interpret UK legislation in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that judges must ensure that UK laws do not violate the fundamental rights and freedoms outlined in the ECHR. To achieve this, courts use three main techniques: reading down, reading in, and reading out. Reading down involves limiting the meaning of certain words in a statute to make it compatible with human rights. Reading in means adding words to modify the meaning of a statute in line with human rights principles. Lastly, reading out involves removing parts of the legislation that contradict human rights protections. This approach allows for more flexibility in interpreting laws, as judges are required to find a way to make them consistent with human rights, unless it is completely impossible to do so. This approach has several advantages, such as addressing gaps in the law, particularly in cases involving new technologies, and ensuring that laws respect human rights. However, there are also some disadvantages to this approach. One of the main concerns is the risk of judicial overreach, as judges may effectively make law. Additionally, this process can be time-consuming and uncertain, as it requires judges to determine Parliament's intention. To further illustrate this, let's examine a case analysis. In R v A (No 2) [2001], the defendant argued that Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which restricted a defendant's ability to introduce evidence of a complainant's sexual history in rape trials, violated their human rights. The court used the techniques of reading down and reading in to modify the meaning of the statute and ensure its compatibility with human rights. In conclusion, the interpretation of laws under the Human Rights Act is a complex and crucial aspect of our legal system. While it allows for more flexibility and respect for human rights, it also raises concerns about judicial overreach and uncertainty..

Scene 20 (37m 15s)

[Audio] As we reach the final slide, we will now examine the concept of judicial precedent and its significance in legal decision-making. Judicial precedent, also known as "case law," ensures the maintenance of consistency, fairness, and efficiency within the legal system. This principle, originating from the Latin phrase "stare decisis," which translates to "to stand by things decided," requires judges to follow previous decisions when handling new cases with similar circumstances. This not only promotes consistency but also shows respect for the decisions made by past judges. Additionally, a hierarchy of courts, with the highest authority being the Supreme Court, guarantees that the decisions made hold the most weight and remain uniform in the legal system. Now, we will delve into the various approaches to statutory interpretation that fall under judicial precedent. The first approach is the literal rule, which states that words should hold their ordinary meaning. This principle was established in the case of Berriman (1946) and is known for its predictability and adherence to Parliament's intentions. However, it can also lead to unjust outcomes, as seen in some cases. The golden rule, on the other hand, aims to avoid absurd results by interpreting laws in a sensible manner. A notable example is the case of Adler v George (1964). This approach is more flexible than the literal rule, but it can be vague as to when it applies. Next, the mischief rule examines the issue that Parliament intended to address with a specific law. This was demonstrated in the case of Smith v Hughes (1960) and is known for preventing legal loopholes. However, it also has the disadvantage of less certainty in interpretation. Finally, the purposive approach focuses on Parliament's intentions when creating a law. This was evident in the case of Quintavalle (2003) and is praised for its ability to adapt to modern needs. However, there is a risk of judicial lawmaking with this approach. In conclusion, judicial precedent plays a vital role in the legal system, promoting consistency, fairness, and efficiency. The different approaches to statutory interpretation under this principle each have their strengths and weaknesses, but they all work together to ensure that laws are correctly interpreted and applied. Thank you for following along with this presentation. We hope you have gained a better understanding of judicial precedent and its role in the legal system..