The court system and precedent

The English court system is a hierarchy structured by the doctrine of stare decisis: lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts, and most courts are bound by their own previous decisions. The doctrine produces consistency and predictability but at the cost of flexibility. The Practice Statement 1966 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 have qualified the doctrine''s rigidity at the apex.

This week introduces the court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent, and the techniques judges use to navigate it (distinguishing; overruling; persuasive authority). The doctrinal payoff is the ability to read any case and identify which parts are binding (ratio) and which are not (obiter), to recognise when a court can or cannot depart from a previous decision, and to predict how the doctrine of precedent will operate in future cases.

The topic connects to W1 (sources of English law — case law as a primary source), W3 (statutory interpretation — the courts'' use of precedent in interpreting statutes), and W4 (legal reasoning — the use of precedent as a method of analogical reasoning).

The doctrine of stare decisis (''to stand by what has been decided'') developed in the medieval period as the common-law system emerged. The doctrine was not always rigid — early common-law judges treated precedent as persuasive rather than binding. The strict modern doctrine emerged in the nineteenth century with the establishment of authoritative law reports (Law Reports series 1865; All England Reports 1936; Weekly Law Reports 1953) that allowed precedent to be reliably identified and cited.

London Tramways Co v London County Council [1898] AC 375 established the strict doctrine for the House of Lords: the Lords were bound by their own previous decisions. The rule was relaxed by the Practice Statement 1966 (Lord Gardiner LC), which permitted the Lords to depart from their previous decisions ''when it appears right to do so''. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the Supreme Court, which has continued to apply the Practice Statement approach.

The Court of Appeal''s position was settled in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718: the Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions except in three circumstances (conflicting decisions; decisions inconsistent with House of Lords / Supreme Court authority; decisions reached per incuriam). The Young v Bristol exceptions remain the modern position.

The High Court and other courts are subject to a more flexible doctrine: bound by Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions; not bound by their own previous decisions but typically follow them as persuasive authority.

(1) The court hierarchy. From bottom to top: Magistrates'' Courts (criminal summary; some civil); County Courts (civil first instance); Crown Court (criminal trials on indictment; appeals from Magistrates); High Court (civil first instance, divided into Chancery, King''s Bench, and Family Divisions); Court of Appeal (Civil and Criminal Divisions); Supreme Court (the apex, replacing the House of Lords from 2009). The Privy Council sits as a separate body, hearing appeals from some Commonwealth jurisdictions and certain UK matters.

Five graded practice questions in the panel below.

See the Further Reading panel for Bingham, Goodhart, the Practice Statement, and the post-1966 academic commentary.