It's from the NEAP/A+ Notes/whatever it is they're called. My legal teacher uses A+ and NEAP interchangeably whenever he refers to these so I always get so confused as to what they're actually called.
Thanks meganrobyn and chasej for your help! I really appreciate it.
---
Also...
Would really love some help with this question:
The doctrine of precedent allows for both consistency and flexibility. To what extent do you agree? [6 marks]
The doctrine of precedent refers to the process by which lower courts in the same hierarchy are obligated to follow the decisions of higher courts in cases for which the material facts are the same. This process provides for consistency by ensuring that similar cases are dealt with in a similar way as judges are obligated to uphold the decisions of higher judges for similar cases. The problem with this, however, is that lower courts are obligated to uphold a higher court’s decision irrespective of whether or not it’s good or bad. Bad precedents may lead to injustice and poor judgements in cases as a precedent cannot be changed until a case comes before a higher court with similar material facts in order to change the precedent. There are also ways in which courts avoid precedent including reversals, overruling, distinguishing and disapproving which may lead to some inconsistency.
The courts also have some flexibility in avoiding precedents as they may choose to reverse, overrule, distinguish or disapprove the judgements of other judges. However, they are some inherent restrictions on the amount of flexibility they have. Reversing a judgement can also be done for cases upon appeal to a higher court in which the higher court has made a contrary judgement to the lower court. Overruling only occurs in higher courts on a case which is similar to one previously handled by a lower court in the hierarchy but chooses to make a contrary decision to the lower court. However, while this is possible, judges tend to be conservative and are typically more likely to follow a persuasive precedent than establish a new one. Distinguishing occurs only in instances in which there are key differences in the material facts of the case do not align. Finally, disapproving of a precedent can only occur in a court at the same level of the hierarchy; they may choose to not follow the existing persuasive precedent established by another court at the same hierarchy level. Thus, through the methods outlined above, the courts have some flexibility in avoiding established precedents.
Therefore, to a large extent, the doctrine of precedent allows for both consistency and flexibility.
Thoughts? Have I answered the question? Have I provided enough detail? How many marks do you think I'd have gotten if I'd actually written that in a VCAA exam? Have I structured my answer right? My teacher's always going on and on and on about structure in our answers and answering questions in the same order they're asked and blah blah blah.