The Foundation of Legal Precedent

This assignment asks students to critically evaluate the idea of legal precedent, particularly focusing on Dr. Adam Geary's arguments presented in a video. Students must analyze Geary's views and formulate their own stance on the importance of precedent in legal decision-making. The response should be 300-400 words long and incorporate examples and reasoning to support their position.

What underlies the idea of precedent?

QUESTION
Do you agree with this man’s view on what underlies the idea of precedent?
Give reasons to support your opinion. The answer for this question should be between 300 and
400 words. Bibliography are not included in the word count?
ANSWER
After studying the arguments of Dr. Adam Geary perspective and watching the video.
Here is what, as per my understanding is right, Precedent is the primary and vital form or a part
of providing justice as per human (especially Judges) understanding in common law. Up to some
extent, I would like to agree with DR. Adam Geary that precedent is a culture of arguments and
judge’s argument with the help of precedent, a legal argument used as a reference. To solve a
dispute or reach a conclusion it is important to keep an eye on what happened in the past and
reflects the current circumstances. Dr. Adam Geary emphasizes that one should look one more
cases to have clarity on reality than just relying on precedent. In my opinion, both are important,
and there is a need to find a balance according to the current situation. There are some cases
which are entirely different from the past. “We have to restore the practice of precedent” says Dr.
Adam Geary, well fair enough. But there should remain a balance so justice can prevail. Another
issue according to Dr. Adam Geary is that “Do Judges make law on an Appeal which is bound to
the previous decision which reflects on law and decision making” and may be not applicable to
the current scenario. By providing an example of past cases he puts his case forward, human
rights laws were different previously as compared to the present circumstances. Quotes from
judges in cases from 1966, 1996 and 1998 he says that House of the lord is bound by the
previous decision. Similarly, the court of appeal relies on previous decisions, the impact of
human rights and last but not the least Judicial law-making but under what parameters. Again, I
agree with some part that yes, the house of the lord, appeal court and other relies on a previous
decision to make, well that is exactly the parameter for judges to make judicial law. This practice
itself is the parameter for providing justice and judicial law making. In my opinion, it is right for
majority situations, but in some instances, it is not applicable, in that case, basic principles of
understanding by judges are the right way to make judicial laws. Yes, parliament is the supreme
body of law making and judges are secondary, but if a judge feels that he can make a law then it
is his right to do so, the constitution gives him the power to do it. Moreover, Dr. Adam Geary

says that either you have Authority of the law or either Flexibility in principles. In my opinion,
the main objective is to provide justice so it depends on the situation in most of the cases you
need to have the authority and in some cases, there should be flexibility. And the best way
possible is the way of precedent of legal reasoning in current circumstances of decision making.
But when it comes to individual reasoning there is no significance of precedent; it’s as simple as
that. In most of the case, the comparison of the current situation with any similar past event can
help clarify thinking. But in some cases, the judgment made is only relevant up to the extent that
it is correct.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1996a, ‘Precedent’ in A Companion to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, Patterson (ed),
Oxford: Blackwell
Benditt, T.M., 1987, ‘The Rule of Precedent’ in Goldstein 1987
Brewer, S., 1996, ‘Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of
Legal Argument by Analogy’, Harvard Law Review 109: 923–1028
Dickson, J., 2001, ‘Interpretation and Coherence in Legal Reasoning’ in On-line Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy