ASK YOUR LEGAL QUESTIONS HERE

[zeiinaaa]

hey guys, feel free to ask any questions based on legal studies 3&4, this is for assistance because the end of year exam is nearing closer and closer!
So ask any questions you have on legal questions below. (:

[norabadawy]

Hey I had a question for when talking about the doctrine of precedent as a reason for the court hierarchy.

The existence of a court hierarchy allows for the operation of the doctrine of precedent, where lower courts must follow the legal reasoning behind the decisions (referred to as the ratio decidendi) made by higher courts in the same hierarchy, in cases where the material facts are similar. For example, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victorian County Court must follow legal reasoning behind decisions set out by the Victorian Supreme Court, because the latter is a superior court. The doctrine of precedent allows similar cases to be decided in a similar manner and helps ensure courts’ decisions are consistent and predictable. Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. `

Is this explanation good enough? It doesn't explicitly include binding or persuasive precedent, just ratio decidendi, so I wasn't sure.
Thank you!! 

[Bluegirl]

Hey I had a question for when talking about the doctrine of precedent as a reason for the court hierarchy.

The existence of a court hierarchy allows for the operation of the doctrine of precedent, where lower courts must follow the legal reasoning behind the decisions (referred to as the ratio decidendi) made by higher courts in the same hierarchy, in cases where the material facts are similar. For example, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victorian County Court must follow legal reasoning behind decisions set out by the Victorian Supreme Court, because the latter is a superior court. The doctrine of precedent allows similar cases to be decided in a similar manner and helps ensure courts’ decisions are consistent and predictable. Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. `

Is this explanation good enough? It doesn't explicitly include binding or persuasive precedent, just ratio decidendi, so I wasn't sure.
Thank you!! 

I think it'd be a good idea to also include stare decisis.
How much to include depends on how many marks it's worth, so keep an eye on that.

[meganrobyn]

Hey I had a question for when talking about the doctrine of precedent as a reason for the court hierarchy.

The existence of a court hierarchy allows for the operation of the doctrine of precedent, where lower courts must follow the legal reasoning behind the decisions (referred to as the ratio decidendi) made by higher courts in the same hierarchy, in cases where the material facts are similar. For example, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victorian County Court must follow legal reasoning behind decisions set out by the Victorian Supreme Court, because the latter is a superior court. The doctrine of precedent allows similar cases to be decided in a similar manner and helps ensure courts’ decisions are consistent and predictable. Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. `

Is this explanation good enough? It doesn't explicitly include binding or persuasive precedent, just ratio decidendi, so I wasn't sure.
Thank you!! 

Is that for 2 marks? If so, I think it's longer than you need. It's only two marks: you have a definition and an example. I would cut it after "latter is a superior court." However, I would include the word 'binding' (or 'bound') - eg change "must follow" to "would be bound by" to include it without adding a new sentence. If you're super-worried about linking back to a hierarchy, change "latter is a superior court" to "latter is higher in the hierarchy". It's only 2 marks.