Ratio Decidendi

[misskaraleah]

Does anyone know any clever way of writing a ratio decidendi for a particular case.
With SAC 3 - which i saw for the first time today- states we have to right a possible ratio decidendi for cases related to manslaughter.

Any hints?

[costargh]

What do you mean? Do you have to make up a ratio decidendi? Is it hypothetical?
Or do they give you an article? If they give you an article with quotes from the judge you have to go through the article and see what the reasons for the judges decision were.
But... isn't manslaughter before a jury?

[misskaraleah]

We are given a case and yes the ratio decidendi is hypothetical. Its for Outcome 3 and in relation to Doctrine of Precedent. So in other words, we are creating precedent. I suppose murder is before jury, manslaughter... yes, sorry im confused.

[costargh]

Sorry, from memory ratio decidendi is the judge's "reason for the decision". Key word: judges

So if manslaughter is before a jury, which I thought was the case (its heard in the County Court yes?) then wouldnt the judge merely be presiding over the court but not actually making the decision? (thats the jurys job).

Only thing I can think of is if this case was being heard on appeal which would be in front of a judge/judges which would then allow for a ratio decidendi to occur

[misskaraleah]

Yeah thats right, however our teacher wants us to write our own possible ratio decidendi for the case. So i guess hypothetically. He has provided us with two newspaper articles, yet no quotes from judges. We just have to decide our own ratio decidendi fromt he facts given

From memory, ones regarding a man charged with manslaughter after his dog killed a woman.

Im just concerned about the 'wording' of the ratio decidendi, because it has to be vague.

[brendan]

in the case that you speak of i dun think that there are major questions of law answered.

being asked to actually write a ratio decidendi is very peculiar. it's hardly ever done in law school and really the crucial skill you need as a lawyer is to find the ratio to support whatever argument you happen to be making.

[clinton_09]

first 10,000 word essay on human rights now making your own ratio decidendi, your legal teacher has some pretty interesting expectations

[applekid]

i'm confused, the impression i'm getting in class is ratio decidendi and precedent is more related civil law? (we'll we've been doing in terms of civil cases anyway (ie. donaghue v stevenson/)). we've also been told the ratio decidendi is not always a clear extract in a judges comments and depending on the judge it can be difficult to even extract a ratio decidendi (even to the point where lawyers often refer to implied ratios?)

so strange how people at different schools do completely different things!

[silentgoldeneyes]

From memory I was told precedent only exists in civil law (although it seems logical that judges can set precedents in sentencing in crim cases) because a crime can only be committed against an existing law.
However, precedent can be set on appeal (Studded Belt Case)

But we haven't had to write a ratio. Just extract it from quotes from cases.
It's an odd one...

[costargh]

The sentence is not the precedent. Only the decision.

Eg. If it is found that their is a binding precedent in place, only the decision in that case will be binding, not the sentence (eg. 10 years jail).

[jcc]

Seems like a rather odd activity to do for a SAC, but I'm guessing a 'clever' way of doing it might involve first stating the facts of the case, and then referencing a specific section of the Crimes Act and giving a perculiar interpretation to that section.

[misskaraleah]

From memory I was told precedent only exists in civil law (although it seems logical that judges can set precedents in sentencing in crim cases) because a crime can only be committed against an existing law.
However, precedent can be set on appeal (Studded Belt Case)

But we haven't had to write a ratio. Just extract it from quotes from cases.
It's an odd one...

Yeah we used the studded belt case aswell, but really that is criminal law, because he committed an offence.

first 10,000 word essay on human rights now making your own ratio decidendi, your legal teacher has some pretty interesting expectations

I'm starting to realise that too.

[AppleThief]

I was under the impression that manslaughter can't have a ratio decidendi, because manslaughter is decided by a jury, who don't give reasons for their decisions...so it's not a very useful activity, and I wouldn't really know what to write...

[costargh]

Take a look below.

Sorry, from memory ratio decidendi is the judge's "reason for the decision". Key word: judges

So if manslaughter is before a jury, which I thought was the case (its heard in the County Court yes?) then wouldnt the judge merely be presiding over the court but not actually making the decision? (thats the jurys job).

Only thing I can think of is if this case was being heard on appeal which would be in front of a judge/judges which would then allow for a ratio decidendi to occur

[ninwa]

From memory I was told precedent only exists in civil law (although it seems logical that judges can set precedents in sentencing in crim cases) because a crime can only be committed against an existing law.

I'm pretty sure precedent exists in criminal cases as well, because not all crimes are as clear-cut as the relevant legislative guidelines
e.g. the issue of whether verbal abuse is sufficient provocation to lower the crime of murder to manslaughter is treated differently in different cases, so precedent is used here to apply the case whose circumstances are most similar to the case at hand