Thanks - you clarified what I needed to know! So would this be a decent model answer?
The doctrine of precedent is the process whereby courts refer to the legal principles that have been developed before them and apply those legal principles to a current case, which epitomises the term 'stare decisis.' Stare decisis is the principle that underpins our legal system which essentially means 'to stand by what has already previously been decided,' which promotes consistency and predictability within the law. In order to stand by what has already been decided, the material facts of the case must be similar to the previous case in order to apply the precedent. If no applicable precedent or piece of legislation covers an area of law, the ratio decidendi which is the 'reasoning behind the decision' will form a brand new precedent and become binding on all lower courts. The ratio decidendi can also become persuasive in influencing judges and their decisions whilst not being bound to follow a precedent with the obiter dictum which refer to the 'statements made along the way in coming to the decision' which can also be persuasive but not bound.
mmmm. How would I cut that down? :-) Thanks for the answer Zeima!
AND ANOTHER QUESTION: When would you find a question to discuss the techniques to do with RODD? I really only have like 10 questions to practice with for this SAC and I'm not sure how you'd find a question with RODD, or if you integrate that with the doctrine of precedent explanation.
Ok before I give you advice, keep in mind I did Legal last year so my memory might fail me..
But I think your current answer/explanation for four marks is really good. You could be a little concise in your opening sentence. Here's how I would have started.
I think you miss two key things: the term "superior court of record" (ie. not all courts can make precedents); and the words "in the same court hierachy". But the rest of your answer is good. I mean those two things are petty, and you probably wouldn't lose a mark for it.
You could slip in RODD in there - eg. to avoid following precedents, a judge could reverse, overrule, distinguish or disapprove of a precedent. (I wouldn't proceed into explaining what each of them mean since it's only four marks).
You only need to apply RODD if the question *specifically* asks you to do so.
A question on the 2012 exam - Explain why a Supreme Court (trial division) judge does not have to follow a decision by the Court of Appeal/
Here, you would apply RODD. But no, don't bother with going into RODD in detailed form if it's a 4 marker on a doctrine of precedent question.