The doctrine of judicial precedent is at the heart of the Common Law system of rights and duties. Judicial precedent is concerned with the major of case law in the common law system, it had been described as the legal experience from lawyer’s term. The term of ‘precedent’ there is an implication that what was done before should be done again and which mean a good guide to follow and trying to solve a problem is to see what examples exist where this or similar problems have been tackled before. If a case then had decided point of law it will be logical that kind of explanation will look in the future. Therefore the law does not have essentially differently.
The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, meaning 'to stand by what has been decided'. Under this doctrine, legal decisions made by judges in higher courts set a precedent for judges in equal or lower courts to follow, whereby lower courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases and appellate courts follow their own previous decision. Judicial precedent can applied on cases and to be treated similar when the material facts of the cases are identical.
There are two principles that are involved in judicial precedent. There are ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. The binding part of a previous decision is the ration decidendi (reason for the decision) and it must be followed by judges in later cases. Anything said an obiter dictum (by the way) in the original case is merely persuasive because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue and does not have to be followed. For example: In Donoghue v Stevenson, the claimant suffered food poisoning after drinking from an opaque bottle of ginger beer which contained a dead, decomposing snail.
The House of Lords held that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer that products are safe because the circumstances prevented the consumer from discovering any defects. This is the ratio and Lord Atkin’s “Neighbour Test” was obiter. Stare Decisis allow previous decisions to influence later in similar cases and ensures that higher courts bind lower courts. And it is given by the judge at the end of a case as the explanation of his/her decision.
On the contrary, judge supplemented the expression in the decision the opinion is other matters said that and judge cannot follow it from now on, it in the non-material's fact including judge the idea process, in the legal condition's general observation, the literary embellishment reference, case's judge impossible to be forced to accept afterward it, when was correct, but it might be highly persuasive. And the lower courts any way do not follow the Obiter Dictum. To some degree legal theorists argue about the purpose on the doctrine of judicial precedent. Adherence to precedent helps achieve two objects of the legal order. Firstly it contributes to the maintenance of a regime of stable laws. This stability gives predictability to the law and affords a degree of security for individual rights.
Secondly it ensures that the law develops only in accordance with the changing perceptions of the community and therefore more accurately reflects the morals and expectations of the community. And have good reasons that decision the judge-made properly in detail. By contrast, precedent is accumulates over a long period of time by the time, therefore, it may not applicable to modern society, and the law is not kept up with the pace of the change in society. Meanwhile, it would be accumulated too many cases becomes unnecessary complex and imbalance.
From all these observations, judicial precedent are connected to case that is how law developed. It is necessary, important and as well as being the guideline, I agree that have strongly influence the common law.