Evaluate the disadvantages of Judicial Precedent 12
An initial disadvantage of judicial precedent is that it reduces Parliamentary
Sovereignty. This is a disadvantage as the judiciary is not voted into power by the
general public like the government is. This is also a disadvantage because it means
that the intentions of parliament when they made the law are not always followed by
the judges. However, this increase the amount of flexibility that judges have during a
case.
Another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that judges are more likely to come to
a different verdict if the case has slightly different facts. This is a disadvantage as it
could be seen as unfair for those who go to court as a judge may apply the law
different to another. This is also a disadvantage because it could increase the
inconsistency in the law. On the other hand, judges must follow binding precedent so
this reduces these issues.
Additionally, another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that it reduces the amount
of time spent on cases. This is a disadvantage as it means that sometimes they may
not look long enough for the correct law to be applied. This is also a disadvantage
because it reduces the predictability of a verdict on a case. However, this reduces
the amount of money that is spent due to needing legal representation for a long
time.
Lastly, another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that lower courts are bound by
higher courts. This is a disadvantage because it means that the judges in these
courts do not have a choice as to whether they apply the precedent to the case. This
is also a disadvantage because it may lead to wrong or absurd decisions due to
having to follow other cases precedents. On the other hand, higher courts often have
judges that are more qualified than the lower courts.
An initial disadvantage of judicial precedent is that it reduces Parliamentary
Sovereignty. This is a disadvantage as the judiciary is not voted into power by the
general public like the government is. This is also a disadvantage because it means
that the intentions of parliament when they made the law are not always followed by
the judges. However, this increase the amount of flexibility that judges have during a
case.
Another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that judges are more likely to come to
a different verdict if the case has slightly different facts. This is a disadvantage as it
could be seen as unfair for those who go to court as a judge may apply the law
different to another. This is also a disadvantage because it could increase the
inconsistency in the law. On the other hand, judges must follow binding precedent so
this reduces these issues.
Additionally, another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that it reduces the amount
of time spent on cases. This is a disadvantage as it means that sometimes they may
not look long enough for the correct law to be applied. This is also a disadvantage
because it reduces the predictability of a verdict on a case. However, this reduces
the amount of money that is spent due to needing legal representation for a long
time.
Lastly, another disadvantage of judicial precedent is that lower courts are bound by
higher courts. This is a disadvantage because it means that the judges in these
courts do not have a choice as to whether they apply the precedent to the case. This
is also a disadvantage because it may lead to wrong or absurd decisions due to
having to follow other cases precedents. On the other hand, higher courts often have
judges that are more qualified than the lower courts.
