PLEASE HELP!!

[TAP94]

I am confused as to if we should, and when we should, refer to the 'doctrine of precedent' when asked a question like "Evaluate two weaknesses/strengths of courts as law-makers." When we are asked to evaluate courts as law makers, do we have to refer to the doctrine of precedent? With any question regarding the operation of courts and courts as a law-maker, how do i know when to refer to the doctrine of precedent???
 
Thanks for all the help guys...

[Dejan]

I am confused as to if we should, and when we should, refer to the 'doctrine of precedent' when asked a question like "Evaluate two weaknesses/strengths of courts as law-makers." When we are asked to evaluate courts as law makers, do we have to refer to the doctrine of precedent? With any question regarding the operation of courts and courts as a law-maker, how do i know when to refer to the doctrine of precedent???
 
Thanks for all the help guys...

The doctrine of precedent is not either a strength or weakness so don't include it in and also in the evaluation(if it is correct me if I am wrong). You can only refer to it when the questions talks about the binding precedent, stating, defining what the doctrine of precedent is

[aabattery]

My memory has faded me, but I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of precedent is one aspect that could be used to evaluate the courts as law-makers.

An advantage of courts as lawmakers - is that they have the doctrine of precedent at their disposal - judges can make relevant practical decisions to the cases before them and hence form precedents that can be easily developed, referred to and built upon in future decisions because of the doctrine's flexibility.

A disadvantage of courts making law is that the use of precedent to make law causes an unorganised, unstructured development of that area of law - due to the need for a particular case to come before the court before the court can decide on a new principle of law;
Also, precedents are not necessarily 'binding' - they may be avoided by judges (reversed, overturned, disapproved, distinguished - RODD) - hence why legislating through parliament is advantageous (ie. laws may only be amended after the amendment has been voted through the House of Reps and the Senate just like a normal bill would be).

[meganrobyn]

I am confused as to if we should, and when we should, refer to the 'doctrine of precedent' when asked a question like "Evaluate two weaknesses/strengths of courts as law-makers." When we are asked to evaluate courts as law makers, do we have to refer to the doctrine of precedent? With any question regarding the operation of courts and courts as a law-maker, how do i know when to refer to the doctrine of precedent???
 
Thanks for all the help guys...

You can get some great mileage out of all the different parts of the DoP in terms of evaluation - definitely use it! And any time they ask about the ability of the courts to make or change the law.