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

The D belief of Judicial Precedent depends on the hierarchy of the court of justices - Essay ExampleIn role similar cases emerge in the prospect, similar rules or principle is utilized in conveying justice through intelligent decisions. The doctrine come ups basis on gaze decisis meaning that considering previous decision make 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 introduce the rationale beneath which he or she provides certain judgment and not an early(a). The doctrine presents general rule where on the whole courts be required to follow the same rationale in delivering decisions that were developed in courts that bear high ranks (Mitchell & Dadhania 2003, 61). The doctrine is reliant on the chain of command of the court sys tem, previous case records and the attitude or approaches that the resolve utilize. The hierarchy of the court system in the English context offers a better comprehension of originator doctrine. The courts ar 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 canvass 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 c ourts thus affecting the provision of decisions on certain cases. These hierarchical systems ought to be considered in making decisions that involve 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 solicit is considered peak 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 prev ious 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 farming 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