In this family - is indeed a case of "Ask The Family"
Magistrates Courts are the first point of call - and they have to refer to Crown and County Courts for serious hearings or sentences beyond their authority.
Anyway per the accountants (Willi and his pal Bob) and the lawyers (Siegli and Andreas) - the nature of binding precedent is a special feature of UK common law jurisdiction. The doctrine is based on
book on Law (Business and General) which you can find in any bookseller to verify us (Swiss guys in e-mail to me) and a similar book for the medical profession wrote:
The doctrine of precedent is based on the general principle that once a court has stated the legal position in a given situation, hence the same decision will be reached in any future case where the material facts are the same
Andreas has told me he knows of a precedential case regarding use or non-use
of cycle lane which he would have used - had he been defending Ed. Andreas is not based in Shropshire though.
However, per all the law books from legal/police to business to medicine in the chapters in which they discuss the "sources of law" - it says that whether a court is bound to follow a previous decision depends on
which court gave this decision If a superior court ruled - then all courts below are bound to abide by the ruled precedent. A superior court is not bound by the findings of a lower one. Why Appeal Court can over-ride the lower courts and why House of Lords can kick the Appeal Court into touch
as I understand this ..
Per the Law Books - all of them from my mecdical ones to Willi's Accountancy ones, IG's Plod ones and the ones used by that rogue Andreas
Quote:
1. Decisions from the House of Lords bind all other courts for the future and until 1966 were even binding on the House itself
Lord Chancellor of the day ruled that by rigidly binding the House - we stunted development and justice.
2. Court of Appeal is bound by previous decisions of the House of Lords and by its own decisions House of Lords is not bound by the Appeal Court's decision.
3. A High Court judge is bound by the decisions of the Appeal Court and the House of Lords
bit not by other High Court decisions 4. A County Court judge is bound by all decisions by the higher courts
This does not mean that higher courts disregard the findings of the lower courts/ Not
binding but
persuasive
If the person appeals to the Higher Court - and succeeds - then this reverses the precedent set by the lower courts. If a court hears a similar case - then the higher court's precedential decision would over-rule the previous decisions. [/quote
So - as I understand from asking the family
The decision could stand - but a brief who has done
his homework would know that the decision was no longer binding on the court as it has been superseded
A higher court can "disapprove" as cast doubt on the correctness of the lower court's decision as well as "distinguish" certain variances on the similar but not identical facts before it.
Hmmmm! not so clear cut or so black and white
I misread Andreas's mail to me. I confused his "civil" with his "criminal". He does say that a criminal case may indeed re- hear the case presented in the Crown Court and will also question the decision as based on the finding of fact as presented at the original case.
If the judge did not judge on the finding of fact.. then Ed.. you may indeed have a good ground for appeal. DO check all this with your own legal rep and if you do appeal - all the best and keep us posted as far as you can under sub-judice rulings. We can only try to offer support, solace, some comfort and a shoulder to cry on. But - hey - better than you thought from us
As said - we are far from being speeding rebels (and yeah - I admit - love my car and love to drive fast if I can do so legally in Germany and on track - but never in an urban or busy busy setting) - we want fair play for all ... including those who ride bikes. We all have a (privileged) right to use the roads - and by "privileged right" - I mean a right so long as we all keep to C-ourtesy - OAST rules
Thus - we all have a right to use any road - and we all share and negotiate our safe progress
But basically - we want to see fair play and we ain't at all sure you got fair play on this based on what you say. I am sure you are aware that we got a bare bone account from C+ paragraph - and had to speculate as to why they went that far.
But do keep us informed and we will give a sympathetic ear to you and try to offer comfort and some help.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
