How does doctrine of precedent work

The next case involves a Zoneout prescription for a patient with severe anxiety secondary to cancer treatment. The judge rules that Zoneout is not a dangerous drug under these facts because the risk of addiction is outweighed by the benefits of suppressing the anxiety.

As more judicial opinions are written on prescribing Zoneout, it will become clearer when it is legal to use it and when it is prohibited. These opinions are the common law precedent on the prescription of Zoneout. They tell a physician when it is permissible to use Zoneout.

The value of a common law system is that the law can be adapted to situations that were not contemplated by the legislature. There are two disadvantages. First, judges must follow the precedent cases. If they do not, then it is impossible to predict what the law is. The second is that with hundreds of cases being decided every day, it is hard to keep up with the relevant decision.

It is not unusual for several courts to be deciding cases on the same subject at the same time, with no good way to coordinate their opinions. Frequently the courts will reach different conclusions about the law. Scenario One. The legislation defines trespass as the unauthorised entrance onto property belonging to another party — on that basis alone Downtown has clearly committed trespass. He determines that the legislation should be applied strictly and finds Downtown guilty of trespass.

However given the extenuating circumstances, he imposes only a small fine and does not record a conviction. Scenario Two. There are no relevant precedents to follow. Scenario Three. The legislation defines trespass as unauthorised entrance onto property belonging to another party — on that basis alone Downtown has clearly committed trespass.

Because this precedent is from a higher court, the trial judge has no option but to acquit Downtown and discharge the case. Scenario Four. Counsel for the claimant in Coral Reef argued that the decision of Deputy Master Collaco Moraes in the Randall case was wrong because: It was not open to a master to develop the English doctrine of precedent by holding that, in the absence of authority on the point he can treat the judgments of masters exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court as having the same status as judgments of High Court judges.

Anomalies would arise if the decisions of masters were to be treated as of equal precedent status as those of High Court judges. Master Matthews rejected these arguments. The position facing him in the instant case was such that he was now required to decide the point one way or another.

There is no longer an automatic right to ask the judge to rehear any application made to the master. An appeal must be brought, and permission obtained. It was therefore necessary to reconsider the matter on principle, and under the civil procedure system as it is at the present day. The same principle applied where judges having a particular status temporarily sat in in a court lower than that in which they would normally sit and he cited examples where this had happened including instances when Scott Baker LJ and Hallett LJ had both sat as assistant deputy coroners, the lowest rank of coroner at the time, in important coroners inquests.

The decisions made in those cases had no more value for the purposes of the doctrine of precedent than they would have if the judges had been regular judges of the courts in question. If they thought the decision was wrong, then they would say so, and would be free to decide differently. That is what happens between High court judges and there is no reason why the same should not happen between a High Court judge and a master.

Masters and High Court judges were both judicial officers, of the court and there is no reason why the description in the Act should have any impact on the rules of precedent in the absence of statutory or case-law rules for doing so. Decision of the High Court Master Matthews therefore rejected the decision of the High Court judge in Sarpd Oil for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal in the same case in reversing him.

Comment This case provides a useful analysis of the doctrine of precedent, particularly as it relates to the status of masters and their parity with High court judges in terms of hearing and deciding cases.