P6 P7
P6:
Binding Precedent:
A precedent from an earlier case that must be followed even if the later judge doesn’t agree. When a higher court makes a decision, it is a binding that all courts who are lower.
R V DUDELY and Stevens (1884): The two shipwrecked men kill and ate the cabin boy, later both men were convicted to murder.
The ratio Decidendi: The ratio Decidendi is binding on lower courts and stands in contrast to obiter dicta.
The court gave three reasons for refusing a defence of necessity for example:
If necessity is not accessible on a charge of theft of food because of starvation, it cannot even be allowed to a charge of murder.
The Christian view is that “Giving one’s own life for another” Rather taking someone else’s life for their own.
Impossibility of choosing someone’s value for life.
For this case Binding Precedent is that all of these cases would be used if a similar case occurred again.
Persuasive Precedent:
A precedent that is not binding on the court, the judge may consider and decide that the principle that is chosen is correct so it is persuaded for it to be followed.
Persuasive precedents come from; Courts lower in hierarchy, Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and A dissenting judgement.
Obiter Dicta:An opinion stated by a judge that has only related method on the case in question and is therefore not binding.
Hill v Baxter (1958): The defendant driver fell asleep and drove into some people, he was guilty because when he felt drowsy he should have parked somewhere but he didn’t.
There are three ways of refusing of defence:
The judge gave an example of a man driving while getting stung by bees and losing control of the car this is an example of the driver not being at fault.
This example would be obiter dicta.
P7
Describe the process when making an act of parliament
Manifesto:
A public statement of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.It is
Binding Precedent:
A precedent from an earlier case that must be followed even if the later judge doesn’t agree. When a higher court makes a decision, it is a binding that all courts who are lower.
R V DUDELY and Stevens (1884): The two shipwrecked men kill and ate the cabin boy, later both men were convicted to murder.
The ratio Decidendi: The ratio Decidendi is binding on lower courts and stands in contrast to obiter dicta.
The court gave three reasons for refusing a defence of necessity for example:
If necessity is not accessible on a charge of theft of food because of starvation, it cannot even be allowed to a charge of murder.
The Christian view is that “Giving one’s own life for another” Rather taking someone else’s life for their own.
Impossibility of choosing someone’s value for life.
For this case Binding Precedent is that all of these cases would be used if a similar case occurred again.
Persuasive Precedent:
A precedent that is not binding on the court, the judge may consider and decide that the principle that is chosen is correct so it is persuaded for it to be followed.
Persuasive precedents come from; Courts lower in hierarchy, Decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and A dissenting judgement.
Obiter Dicta:An opinion stated by a judge that has only related method on the case in question and is therefore not binding.
Hill v Baxter (1958): The defendant driver fell asleep and drove into some people, he was guilty because when he felt drowsy he should have parked somewhere but he didn’t.
There are three ways of refusing of defence:
The judge gave an example of a man driving while getting stung by bees and losing control of the car this is an example of the driver not being at fault.
This example would be obiter dicta.
P7
Describe the process when making an act of parliament
Manifesto:
A public statement of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.It is