Hi, need to submit a 2500 words essay on the topic Law judecial precedent.its merits and not on the merits of previously decided cases and on the other hand, the law of judicial precedent is important

Hi, need to submit a 2500 words essay on the topic Law judecial precedent.

its merits and not on the merits of previously decided cases and on the other hand, the law of judicial precedent is important as part of the courts internal control mechanism.

With the law judicial precedent, the courts are bound to follow what principles and interpretations of law have been previously set,

thus whimsical and unfounded decisions can be avoided. Moreover, since there are now decided cases that may serve as basis in deciding the case at hand, we will have some ideas as to the possible outcome of the case. On the negative side, the existence of judicial precedent can hinder the delivery of justice. As in the case of R v Kansal (2002), the court considered itself as bound by its decision of the case of R v Lambert (2001) even if it knows that its decisions in that case is flawed. Situations like these presents big dilemma that could have some bearing on people’s perspective about the courts.

Can the Court correct its flawed decisions even it is bound by the law of judicial precedent? Yes, the decisions of the Courts are not cast is stones and these decisions may be reversed, overruled or rejected under certain grounds. In the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944), the Court of Appeals said that it bound by its previous decision. Technically, the court is saying here that we have decided a case similar as this and unless there is a clear showing that the facts of case at bar contradicts that of the previously decided case, it has no choice but to follow the course of it previous decisions. The Court of Appeals in this case also provided three cases where it can overturn its previous decision and these conditions are as follows (1) where there is a conflict between two Court of Appeals decisions (2) where the decision is in conflict with the decisions made by the House of Lords and (3) where decision of the previous case is said to be given a per incuriam (a finding of want of care exist), the courts cannot decide the case at bar