33:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"Gingerbread"] 35:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"RecordResourceResume"] 36:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 37:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 24:[["$","$L33",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L34",["$","$L35",null,{"href":"/a-level/law/aqa/law-making-judicial-precedent/flashcards","label":"Law making: judicial precedent","subjectCode":"a_level_law__aqa","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L36",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L37",null,{"decks":[{"id":"a8de3079-5b2b-4680-ae89-ab26a7fb7274","title":"Law making: judicial precedent Flashcards","topicId":"8ea3801a-8f29-595e-87d3-e010a31e1740","topicSlug":"law-making-judicial-precedent","cards":[{"id":"1f7f261e-67e1-4f6b-b012-cc8e3f160581","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If a binding precedent applies to materially similar facts, what must the later court do?","back":"Follow the earlier legal rule.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Follow the earlier legal rule.","correct":true,"explanation":"A binding precedent requires a later court to apply the earlier court’s legal rule when the material facts are sufficiently similar and the earlier court had superior authority."},{"text":"Overrule the earlier legal rule.","correct":false,"explanation":"Overruling is normally performed by a higher court reconsidering an earlier precedent, not by a later court facing materially similar facts. The later court must follow the earlier legal rule."},{"text":"Ignore the earlier legal rule.","correct":false,"explanation":"A court cannot disregard applicable binding authority merely because it disagrees with it. When the material facts are sufficiently similar, it must follow the earlier legal rule."},{"text":"Reconsider the earlier legal rule.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reconsideration does not remove the force of a binding precedent and may wrongly suggest judicial discretion. The later court must follow the earlier legal rule on materially similar facts."}]},{"id":"a18fc570-2a83-464b-bd4d-5eebf8c55062","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Judicial precedent uses earlier court decisions as [ ] in later cases.","back":"Judicial precedent uses earlier court decisions as legal authority in later cases.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"legal authority","correct":true,"explanation":"Earlier decisions provide legal authority because their legal reasoning and rules can guide later judges, while binding precedents must be followed when the relevant conditions are met."},{"text":"factual evidence","correct":false,"explanation":"Earlier cases may contain factual evidence, but precedent concerns the authority of their legal rules rather than using their facts as evidence. The required term is legal authority."},{"text":"primary legislation","correct":false,"explanation":"A court judgment is not legislation enacted by Parliament, even when its precedent is binding. Earlier decisions are used as legal authority in later cases."},{"text":"jury instructions","correct":false,"explanation":"Earlier decisions do not operate as jury instructions, which guide jurors on law during a trial. Judicial precedent uses those decisions as legal authority in later cases."}]},{"id":"dd57796d-90f9-4066-88a6-d03bfeac78b9","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What makes a precedent persuasive rather than binding?","back":"The later court may consider it but need not follow it.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The later court may consider it but need not follow it.","correct":true,"explanation":"Persuasive precedent can influence a judge’s reasoning, but it carries no compulsory force. The later court is therefore free to consider it without being required to follow it."},{"text":"The later court must apply it and cannot depart from it.","correct":false,"explanation":"Treating the precedent as compulsory confuses persuasive authority with binding authority. A later court may consider a persuasive precedent, but it remains free not to follow it."},{"text":"The later court must disregard it and cannot consider it.","correct":false,"explanation":"Persuasive authority is not automatically irrelevant and can help a court reach its decision. The later court may consider it, although it is not obliged to follow it."},{"text":"The later court must overrule it before considering it.","correct":false,"explanation":"Overruling changes a precedent’s legal status and is not what makes authority persuasive. Persuasive precedent may be considered by the later court but need not be followed."}]},{"id":"6b7dfc1c-c431-4055-8aff-800c1cace37b","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why does the court hierarchy matter for precedent?","back":"Lower courts generally follow legal rules from higher courts.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Lower courts generally follow legal rules from higher courts.","correct":true,"explanation":"The hierarchy determines which precedents are binding: decisions on legal rules made by higher courts generally bind lower courts hearing later cases with materially similar facts."},{"text":"Higher courts generally follow legal rules from lower courts.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the doctrine of vertical precedent. Higher courts are not generally bound by lower-court rulings; lower courts generally follow legal rules established by higher courts."},{"text":"All courts generally follow legal rules from every other court.","correct":false,"explanation":"The hierarchy does not make every judicial decision binding on every court, because authority depends on the courts’ relative positions. Lower courts generally follow higher courts’ legal rules."},{"text":"Lower courts generally follow factual findings from higher courts.","correct":false,"explanation":"Precedent concerns legal rules rather than requiring lower courts to adopt higher courts’ findings about particular evidence. Lower courts generally follow legal rules established by higher courts."}]},{"id":"a287f9fe-8dca-45b6-b6fd-d87ef7c74454","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier [ ] where material facts are [ ].","back":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier binding decisions where material facts are sufficiently similar.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier binding decisions where material facts are sufficiently similar.","correct":true,"explanation":"The doctrine of stare decisis promotes consistency by requiring courts to follow binding earlier decisions when the legally significant facts of the later case are sufficiently similar."},{"text":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier persuasive decisions where material facts are sufficiently similar.","correct":false,"explanation":"Persuasive decisions may influence a court but do not have to be followed. Stare decisis requires adherence to binding decisions where the material facts are sufficiently similar."},{"text":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier binding decisions where material facts are substantially different.","correct":false,"explanation":"Binding precedent applies when material facts are sufficiently similar, not substantially different. Significant factual differences may allow the later court to distinguish the earlier decision."},{"text":"Stare decisis means courts should follow earlier persuasive decisions where material facts are substantially different.","correct":false,"explanation":"This combines two errors: persuasive decisions are optional, and substantially different facts may justify distinguishing a case. The doctrine concerns binding decisions with sufficiently similar material facts."}]},{"id":"06fcec4f-38fd-4695-b5f7-061298d1e369","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which court is at the top of the UK court hierarchy?","back":"The Supreme Court.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The Supreme Court.","correct":true,"explanation":"The Supreme Court is the UK’s final court of appeal and occupies the highest position in the general domestic court hierarchy, subject to distinct arrangements for some jurisdictions."},{"text":"The Court of Appeal.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Court of Appeal is below the Supreme Court, and its decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court where permission is granted. The top court is the Supreme Court."},{"text":"The High Court.","correct":false,"explanation":"The High Court is a senior court, but it stands below both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is at the top."},{"text":"The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Judicial Committee hears certain overseas and specialist appeals but is not the highest court in the UK domestic hierarchy. That position belongs to the Supreme Court."}]},{"id":"996986c0-d7cd-4d0c-9013-c7698ccd672c","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did the Supreme Court replace in 2009?","back":"The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.","correct":true,"explanation":"The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transferred the House of Lords’ judicial functions to a separate Supreme Court, which began work in 2009 as the final appellate court."},{"text":"The Court of Appeal.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Court of Appeal continued to operate below the new Supreme Court and was not replaced. The Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords."},{"text":"The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council continued its separate appellate role after 2009. The new Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords."},{"text":"The High Court.","correct":false,"explanation":"The High Court remained part of the court structure and was not abolished in 2009. The Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords."}]},{"id":"02d86b6f-8df6-42e3-9da2-1588075a8f97","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"How are older House of Lords decisions treated after the Supreme Court’s creation?","back":"As top-level authority unless later changed.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"As top-level authority unless later changed.","correct":true,"explanation":"Creating the Supreme Court did not erase the House of Lords’ existing case law. Its earlier judicial decisions retain top-level authority unless a later authorised decision changes them."},{"text":"As merely persuasive authority unless later reaffirmed.","correct":false,"explanation":"The institutional change in 2009 did not reduce all House of Lords precedents to merely persuasive status. They remain top-level authority unless properly changed later."},{"text":"As automatically overruled authority after 2009.","correct":false,"explanation":"Pre-2009 House of Lords decisions were not automatically overruled when the Supreme Court was created. They continue as top-level authority unless a later decision changes them."},{"text":"As lower-court authority with no binding force.","correct":false,"explanation":"The House of Lords was the former highest appellate court, so its judicial decisions did not become lower-court rulings. They remain top-level authority unless later changed."}]},{"id":"7d8845e8-31db-4091-872c-209e3c0bd14d","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is the binding part of a judgment?","back":"The ratio decidendi.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The ratio decidendi.","correct":true,"explanation":"The ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary to decide the case. It binds lower courts, and sometimes the deciding court itself, under the doctrine of precedent."},{"text":"The obiter dicta.","correct":false,"explanation":"Obiter dicta are additional observations not necessary for deciding the case, so they are only persuasive. The binding part of a judgment is the ratio decidendi."},{"text":"The case summary.","correct":false,"explanation":"A case summary describes the judgment but does not itself establish a binding legal principle. The binding part is the court’s ratio decidendi."},{"text":"The dissenting judgment.","correct":false,"explanation":"A dissenting judgment expresses the reasoning of a judge who disagreed with the majority, so it is not binding. The binding principle is the majority’s ratio decidendi."}]},{"id":"78aa8d62-db69-4794-a149-e0055509477f","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle [ ] and may become [ ].","back":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary for the decision and may become binding precedent.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary for the decision and may become binding precedent.","correct":true,"explanation":"The ratio is the legal principle required to reach the court’s decision. Within the court hierarchy, that principle may bind courts deciding later cases with similar material facts."},{"text":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle helpful to the decision and may become binding precedent.","correct":false,"explanation":"A principle that is merely helpful rather than necessary is likely to be obiter. The ratio must be necessary for the decision and may become binding precedent."},{"text":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle necessary for the decision and may become persuasive precedent.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although some ratios have only persuasive force outside the relevant hierarchy, the defining precedential role tested here is that a necessary legal principle may become binding precedent."},{"text":"Ratio decidendi is the legal principle mentioned during the case and may become binding precedent.","correct":false,"explanation":"Simply mentioning a principle does not make it the ratio, because it must be necessary to the decision. Only that necessary principle may become binding precedent."}]},{"id":"deee9300-92cc-47e9-8d22-820efaef015e","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Why are obiter dicta not binding?","back":"They are not necessary for the decision.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They are not necessary for the decision.","correct":true,"explanation":"Obiter dicta are judicial comments or principles that were not required to decide the case. Because they are not part of the ratio, they cannot create binding precedent."},{"text":"They are not recorded in the judgment.","correct":false,"explanation":"Obiter dicta may be recorded clearly within a judgment and subsequently reported. They are not binding because they are not necessary for the court’s decision."},{"text":"They are made only by lower courts.","correct":false,"explanation":"Judges in any court, including the Supreme Court, can make obiter comments. Their non-binding status arises because they are not necessary for deciding the case."},{"text":"They are contrary to the final decision.","correct":false,"explanation":"Obiter dicta need not contradict the outcome and may support or extend the court’s reasoning. They are non-binding because they are unnecessary for the decision."}]},{"id":"5630e001-dc5c-4a4b-8e79-77daf47b5854","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Obiter dicta are not binding, but may be [ ].","back":"Obiter dicta are not binding, but may be persuasive.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"persuasive","correct":true,"explanation":"Obiter dicta do not bind later courts because they were unnecessary to the decision, but their reasoning may persuade another judge, especially when made by a senior court."},{"text":"binding","correct":false,"explanation":"Treating all judicial comments as binding confuses obiter dicta with the ratio decidendi. Obiter dicta are unnecessary to the decision, although they may be persuasive."},{"text":"mandatory","correct":false,"explanation":"Mandatory authority must be followed within the applicable court hierarchy, whereas obiter dicta need not be followed. They can instead have persuasive influence on later courts."},{"text":"irrelevant","correct":false,"explanation":"Non-binding does not mean legally irrelevant. Obiter dicta may contain influential reasoning that persuades later courts, even though judges are not required to follow it."}]},{"id":"07165806-d1c2-43b6-b32f-1b36b3f95838","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which case shows obiter comments can be influential on attempted murder and duress?","back":"R v Howe was followed in R v Gotts.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"R v Howe was followed in R v Gotts.","correct":true,"explanation":"In R v Howe, the House of Lords stated obiter that duress should not defend attempted murder. R v Gotts later followed that reasoning, demonstrating obiter’s persuasive influence."},{"text":"R v Gotts was followed in R v Howe.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the chronology and influence of the cases. R v Howe came first, and its obiter comments on duress and attempted murder were followed in R v Gotts."},{"text":"R v Howe was followed in R v Woollin.","correct":false,"explanation":"R v Woollin concerns the meaning of intention in murder rather than following Howe on duress and attempted murder. Howe’s obiter reasoning was followed in R v Gotts."},{"text":"R v Lynch was followed in R v Gotts.","correct":false,"explanation":"R v Lynch concerned duress but was overruled by R v Howe rather than followed in Gotts. R v Gotts followed Howe’s obiter comments on attempted murder."}]},{"id":"19d79129-8668-4812-90e3-f5c6008331c9","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why are law reports important for precedent?","back":"They help courts identify the accurate ratio.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They help courts identify the accurate ratio.","correct":true,"explanation":"Reliable law reports provide the judgment and judicial reasoning, enabling later courts to identify accurately the legal principle necessary for the decision and apply precedent consistently."},{"text":"They allow judges to rewrite the ratio.","correct":false,"explanation":"A law report records the judgment rather than authorising later judges to rewrite its legal principle. Its importance is helping courts identify the accurate ratio."},{"text":"They make every judicial statement binding precedent.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reporting a statement does not make it binding, because only the ratio can bind later courts; obiter remains persuasive. Reports help courts distinguish and identify the accurate ratio."},{"text":"They remove the need to compare material facts.","correct":false,"explanation":"Courts must still compare the material facts to decide whether a precedent applies or can be distinguished. Reports instead help them identify the accurate ratio of the earlier case."}]},{"id":"823a46e0-51dd-4889-a8dd-7240391ce059","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When does a court follow precedent?","back":"When it applies a binding ratio to similar material facts.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"When it applies a binding ratio to similar material facts.","correct":true,"explanation":"A court follows precedent by applying the binding legal principle from an earlier case where the current case has sufficiently similar material facts."},{"text":"When it declares an earlier binding ratio legally wrong.","correct":false,"explanation":"Declaring an earlier legal principle wrong is overruling, not following. Following occurs when a court applies a binding ratio to a case with similar material facts."},{"text":"When it avoids a binding ratio because the facts differ.","correct":false,"explanation":"Avoiding a precedent because of materially different facts is distinguishing. A court follows precedent when it applies the earlier binding ratio to similar material facts."},{"text":"When a higher court changes a lower court’s decision in the same case.","correct":false,"explanation":"Changing a lower court’s decision on appeal is reversing, not following. Following means applying a binding ratio from an earlier case with similar material facts."}]},{"id":"83225a87-8c00-411f-942b-1eee3dbc3914","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When does a court overrule precedent?","back":"When it declares an earlier legal rule wrong in a later case.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"When it declares an earlier legal rule wrong in a later case.","correct":true,"explanation":"Overruling occurs when a court deciding a later, separate case declares that the legal rule established in an earlier case was wrong, replacing it for future cases."},{"text":"When it rejects an earlier decision on appeal in the same case.","correct":false,"explanation":"Rejecting a lower court’s decision on appeal in the same proceedings is reversing. Overruling concerns declaring an earlier legal rule wrong in a later, separate case."},{"text":"When it avoids an earlier legal rule because the facts are different.","correct":false,"explanation":"Avoiding an earlier rule because the material facts differ is distinguishing, which leaves the precedent intact. Overruling declares the earlier legal rule wrong in a later case."},{"text":"When it applies an earlier legal rule unchanged to similar facts.","correct":false,"explanation":"Applying an earlier rule to similar facts is following precedent, not overruling it. Overruling occurs when a later court declares the earlier legal rule wrong."}]},{"id":"61b72450-206a-422e-bb80-6a119efeef7d","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What is the difference between overruling and reversing?","back":"

Overruling: changes an earlier legal rule.
Reversing: changes the decision in the same case on appeal.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Overruling: changes an earlier legal rule.
Reversing: changes the decision in the same case on appeal.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Overruling occurs when a court replaces the legal rule established in an earlier case, whereas reversing occurs when an appellate court changes the decision within the same case."},{"text":"

Overruling: changes the decision in the same case on appeal.
Reversing: changes an earlier legal rule.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The concepts have been swapped. Overruling changes a legal rule from an earlier case, while reversing changes the decision being appealed within the same case."},{"text":"

Overruling: changes only an earlier obiter dictum.
Reversing: changes the ratio in a later case.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Overruling is not limited to obiter dicta, and reversing does not occur in a separate later case. Overruling changes an earlier rule; reversing changes the appealed decision."},{"text":"

Overruling: changes an earlier statute.
Reversing: changes precedent in a later case.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Courts interpret legislation rather than overrule statutes, and changing precedent in a later case is overruling. Reversing instead changes the decision in the same case on appeal."}]},{"id":"41179d79-9700-485b-a5e5-5c094d16f340","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When does a court distinguish precedent?","back":"When material facts are different, so the earlier rule need not apply.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"When material facts are different, so the earlier rule need not apply.","correct":true,"explanation":"A court distinguishes a precedent by identifying legally significant differences between the present case’s material facts and those of the earlier case, avoiding application of its rule."},{"text":"When material facts are similar, so the earlier rule need not apply.","correct":false,"explanation":"Similar material facts generally require a binding precedent to be followed. Distinguishing is available when the material facts are different enough that the earlier rule does not apply."},{"text":"When the earlier reasoning is outdated, so the earlier rule need not apply.","correct":false,"explanation":"Considering an earlier rule outdated may support overruling by a court with authority to do so, not distinguishing. Distinguishing depends upon differences in the cases’ material facts."},{"text":"When the earlier decision is per incuriam, so the earlier rule need not apply.","correct":false,"explanation":"A decision made per incuriam may fall within an exception to binding precedent, but that is not distinguishing. Distinguishing requires materially different facts."}]},{"id":"42ad853e-e78a-42fc-8c46-a7736523cbcc","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The Supreme Court may depart from its own previous decisions under the [ ].","back":"The Supreme Court may depart from its own previous decisions under the Practice Statement [1966].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Practice Statement [1966]","correct":true,"explanation":"The Practice Statement [1966] allows the Supreme Court, formerly the House of Lords, to depart from its own previous decisions when it appears right to do so."},{"text":"Young exceptions [1944]","correct":false,"explanation":"Young governs when the Court of Appeal may depart from its own decisions; it is not the source of the Supreme Court’s flexibility. That comes from the Practice Statement [1966]."},{"text":"Constitutional Reform Act [2005]","correct":false,"explanation":"The Constitutional Reform Act created the Supreme Court but did not establish this power to depart from precedent. The relevant authority is the Practice Statement [1966]."},{"text":"Human Rights Act [1998]","correct":false,"explanation":"The Human Rights Act concerns Convention rights and does not grant this precedent power. The Supreme Court’s freedom to depart comes from the Practice Statement [1966]."}]},{"id":"020fed9b-095c-4c98-a88d-6b4e4f659f4f","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which case recognised the Practice Statement freedom for the Supreme Court?","back":"Austin v Southwark LBC [2010].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Austin v Southwark LBC [2010].","correct":true,"explanation":"Austin v Southwark LBC [2010] recognised that the Supreme Court inherited the freedom expressed in the 1966 Practice Statement to depart from its own precedents."},{"text":"Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944].","correct":false,"explanation":"Young concerned the Court of Appeal’s relationship with its own precedents and established limited exceptions. Austin v Southwark LBC [2010] recognised the Supreme Court’s Practice Statement freedom."},{"text":"London Street Tramways v LCC [1898].","correct":false,"explanation":"London Street Tramways established the former strict rule that the House of Lords was bound by its decisions. Austin v Southwark LBC [2010] recognised the later freedom."},{"text":"R v Shivpuri [1986].","correct":false,"explanation":"R v Shivpuri is an example of the House of Lords using the Practice Statement to overrule precedent. Austin v Southwark LBC [2010] recognised the Supreme Court’s freedom."}]},{"id":"88ce0b21-787c-4a98-baa4-3037ca1bdeff","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is the normal rule for the Court of Appeal and its own previous decisions?","back":"It is normally bound by them under Young.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It is normally bound by them under Young.","correct":true,"explanation":"Young establishes that the Court of Appeal is ordinarily bound by its own previous decisions, although it identifies limited exceptions to this general rule."},{"text":"It is normally free to depart from them under the Practice Statement.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Practice Statement permits the Supreme Court to depart from its precedents; it does not give the Court of Appeal equivalent general freedom. Under Young, that court is normally bound."},{"text":"It is normally bound only if unanimous by them under Young.","correct":false,"explanation":"Unanimity is not what determines whether a Court of Appeal precedent binds a later Court of Appeal. Under Young, its previous decisions are normally binding subject to exceptions."},{"text":"It is normally bound by them under London Street Tramways.","correct":false,"explanation":"London Street Tramways concerned the former position of the House of Lords, not the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is normally bound under Young."}]},{"id":"04e6162b-5d51-4dcc-888a-5ed9687bcdc5","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Under Young, what may the Court of Appeal do if two Court of Appeal decisions conflict?","back":"Choose which decision to follow.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Choose which decision to follow.","correct":true,"explanation":"One Young exception applies where two previous Court of Appeal decisions conflict. The court may choose which of those conflicting authorities it will follow."},{"text":"Follow the earlier decision only.","correct":false,"explanation":"Young does not require the earlier of two conflicting Court of Appeal decisions to prevail. The court is permitted to choose which conflicting decision to follow."},{"text":"Follow the later decision only.","correct":false,"explanation":"Young does not require the later conflicting Court of Appeal decision to prevail automatically. The court may choose between the two conflicting decisions."},{"text":"Refer both decisions to the Supreme Court.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Court of Appeal need not refer the conflict before deciding the case. Under Young, it may itself choose which of the conflicting decisions to follow."}]},{"id":"8b1ed367-be1f-4763-8a46-b00d4d499933","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Under Young, what may the Court of Appeal do after a later inconsistent Supreme Court decision?","back":"Follow the later Supreme Court decision.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Follow the later Supreme Court decision.","correct":true,"explanation":"A later inconsistent Supreme Court ruling has higher authority than a Court of Appeal precedent. Young therefore permits the Court of Appeal to follow the Supreme Court’s decision."},{"text":"Follow its earlier Court of Appeal decision.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Supreme Court is higher in the court hierarchy, so its later inconsistent ruling prevails. The Court of Appeal must not continue following its own earlier decision."},{"text":"Distinguish the later Supreme Court decision.","correct":false,"explanation":"Distinguishing depends on materially different facts, not merely an inconsistency between precedents. The Court of Appeal should follow the later decision of the higher Supreme Court."},{"text":"Choose between the two inconsistent decisions.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Court of Appeal does not choose freely between its decision and an inconsistent ruling from a higher court. It must follow the later Supreme Court decision."}]},{"id":"5e9442f8-5ae7-4a17-888d-fc8ff2b29cd4","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does per incuriam mean in precedent?","back":"A decision made in ignorance of relevant law.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A decision made in ignorance of relevant law.","correct":true,"explanation":"A decision is made per incuriam when the court overlooks a relevant statute or binding authority. This recognised oversight may allow a later court to avoid following it."},{"text":"A decision made in ignorance of material facts.","correct":false,"explanation":"Mistaking or overlooking facts does not give per incuriam its specific precedential meaning. The expression concerns a decision made in ignorance of relevant law."},{"text":"A decision made in disagreement with earlier reasoning.","correct":false,"explanation":"Judicial disagreement with an earlier court’s reasoning does not make that decision per incuriam. The doctrine requires that relevant law was overlooked when the decision was made."},{"text":"A decision made in reversal of an earlier judgment.","correct":false,"explanation":"An appellate court changing the outcome in the same case is reversing, not per incuriam. Per incuriam describes a decision made in ignorance of relevant law."}]},{"id":"16af58c7-2af0-4c69-8015-bdf31a3608c2","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where [ ] is at stake, shown in [ ].","back":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where liberty is at stake, shown in R v Gould [1968].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where liberty is at stake, shown in R v Gould [1968].","correct":true,"explanation":"The Criminal Division is more willing to depart from precedent when a defendant’s liberty is involved. R v Gould [1968] demonstrates this flexibility in criminal appeals."},{"text":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where property is at stake, shown in R v Gould [1968].","correct":false,"explanation":"The relevant concern is liberty, not property. R v Gould [1968] illustrates the Criminal Division’s willingness to avoid injustice where a person’s freedom is at stake."},{"text":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where liberty is at stake, shown in R v Shivpuri [1986].","correct":false,"explanation":"The principle concerns liberty, but the supporting authority is R v Gould [1968]. R v Shivpuri is instead an example of the Supreme Court correcting a serious error."},{"text":"The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has more flexibility where public safety is at stake, shown in R v Gould [1968].","correct":false,"explanation":"The recognised justification is protection of liberty, rather than public safety. R v Gould [1968] shows why criminal precedent may be applied flexibly to prevent unjust imprisonment."}]},{"id":"da6d4379-83ef-4111-966b-cf13301040b3","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"Which lower courts do not create binding precedent?","back":"

Crown Court
County Court
Magistrates’ Court

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Crown Court
County Court
Magistrates’ Court

","correct":true,"explanation":"These courts are lower courts and their decisions do not bind other courts as precedent. They must generally follow binding decisions from higher courts in the judicial hierarchy."},{"text":"

High Court
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court

","correct":false,"explanation":"These are senior courts whose decisions can create binding precedent. The courts that do not create binding precedent here are the Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates’ Court."},{"text":"

Court of Appeal
Crown Court
Supreme Court

","correct":false,"explanation":"The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court create binding precedent, so this list includes senior precedent-setting courts. The relevant non-binding courts are the Crown, County and Magistrates’ Courts."},{"text":"

High Court
County Court
Magistrates’ Court

","correct":false,"explanation":"The High Court can create binding precedent, making this list inaccurate. The County Court and Magistrates’ Court do not, alongside the Crown Court, which is also a lower court."}]},{"id":"3b5663a2-9ef0-4ddb-adde-9fbd9dca0d23","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What legal principle came from Donoghue v Stevenson?","back":"A manufacturer may owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A manufacturer may owe a duty of care to an ultimate consumer.","correct":true,"explanation":"Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle: a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product."},{"text":"A manufacturer is automatically liable for every defect in a product.","correct":false,"explanation":"The case did not create automatic liability for every defect. It established that a manufacturer may owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, subject to negligence principles."},{"text":"A retailer owes a contractual duty to every product user.","correct":false,"explanation":"The case concerned a manufacturer’s possible duty in negligence, not a retailer’s contractual duty. The key principle is that manufacturers may owe care to ultimate consumers."},{"text":"A consumer can sue only when a direct contract exists.","correct":false,"explanation":"The decision rejected the need for a direct contract between consumer and manufacturer. It recognised that a duty of care may arise in negligence despite no contractual relationship."}]},{"id":"c0b2f0d7-465c-47f0-a3d1-2c7cc7324626","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Which case did R v Shivpuri overrule?","back":"Anderton v Ryan [1985].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Anderton v Ryan [1985].","correct":true,"explanation":"R v Shivpuri overruled Anderton v Ryan [1985], correcting the earlier interpretation of liability for attempting an impossible crime."},{"text":"R v Gould [1968].","correct":false,"explanation":"R v Gould [1968] concerns flexibility in the Criminal Division where liberty is at stake. The case overruled by R v Shivpuri was Anderton v Ryan [1985]."},{"text":"Donoghue v Stevenson [1932].","correct":false,"explanation":"Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle in negligence and was not overruled by this criminal case. R v Shivpuri overturned Anderton v Ryan [1985]."},{"text":"Balfour v Balfour [1919].","correct":false,"explanation":"Balfour v Balfour concerns intention to create legal relations and was distinguished by Merritt v Merritt. R v Shivpuri instead overruled Anderton v Ryan [1985]."}]},{"id":"cb75c392-7590-44d1-baeb-6ebd9913cde9","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What does R v Shivpuri show about precedent?","back":"It can correct serious errors.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It can correct serious errors.","correct":true,"explanation":"R v Shivpuri shows that the Supreme Court can depart from and correct an earlier decision when it contains a serious error, improving the accuracy of the law."},{"text":"It must always follow every earlier decision.","correct":false,"explanation":"The Supreme Court is not absolutely bound by every previous decision. R v Shivpuri demonstrates that it can correct a serious error by overruling an earlier case."},{"text":"It prevents Parliament from changing the law.","correct":false,"explanation":"Judicial precedent does not prevent Parliament legislating. The case demonstrates a judicial power to correct serious errors in precedent, rather than restricting Parliament’s law-making role."},{"text":"It makes all criminal appeals automatic.","correct":false,"explanation":"The decision did not make criminal appeals automatic. Its significance is that the Supreme Court can overrule precedent containing a serious legal error."}]},{"id":"2d5f91c4-de71-4469-babe-48a183939323","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why could Merritt v Merritt distinguish Balfour v Balfour?","back":"The later agreement was written and made after separation.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The later agreement was written and made after separation.","correct":true,"explanation":"Merritt v Merritt was distinguishable because the spouses had separated and made a written agreement, showing a stronger intention to create legal relations than in Balfour v Balfour."},{"text":"The later agreement was oral and made before marriage.","correct":false,"explanation":"The distinguishing facts were not an oral agreement made before marriage. The agreement in Merritt v Merritt was written and made after the spouses had separated."},{"text":"The later agreement was written and made during cohabitation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although the agreement was written, the crucial second fact was separation, not cohabitation. Separation supported an intention to create legal relations and allowed the earlier case to be distinguished."},{"text":"The later agreement was verbal and made after separation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Separation was relevant, but the agreement was written rather than verbal. The written form, together with separation, helped show an intention to create legal relations."}]},{"id":"1f9e5ed5-b69e-4bee-856a-64dd14ed6d70","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What advantage of precedent comes from treating like cases alike?","back":"Consistency and fairness.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Consistency and fairness.","correct":true,"explanation":"Treating like cases alike promotes consistency because similar disputes receive similar outcomes. It also supports fairness by reducing arbitrary differences between parties in comparable situations."},{"text":"Flexibility and uncertainty","correct":false,"explanation":"Flexibility and uncertainty are more closely associated with disadvantages of precedent, especially when distinguishing cases. Treating like cases alike primarily promotes consistency and fairness."},{"text":"Speed and simplicity","correct":false,"explanation":"Precedent may sometimes save time, but treating like cases alike is specifically valued for consistency and fairness. It does not necessarily make the whole legal system simple."},{"text":"Parliamentary supremacy and codification","correct":false,"explanation":"These concepts concern the constitutional role of Parliament and organising law into codes. The advantage arising from like cases receiving like treatment is consistency and fairness."}]},{"id":"f7723f00-b659-455b-9643-603f14f27e94","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What disadvantage arises from judges making very fine factual distinctions?","back":"Artificial distinctions can make law less clear.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Artificial distinctions can make law less clear.","correct":true,"explanation":"Fine factual distinctions may allow judges to avoid following an earlier case, but artificial distinctions can make the law harder to understand and less predictable."},{"text":"Broad principles can make law more certain.","correct":false,"explanation":"Broad principles may sometimes improve certainty, but they are not the disadvantage described. The problem is that artificial distinctions can make the law less clear."},{"text":"Binding statutes can make law less flexible.","correct":false,"explanation":"This describes a possible criticism of legislation rather than judicial factual distinctions. The relevant disadvantage is that artificial distinctions reduce clarity and predictability."},{"text":"Clear precedents can prevent judicial independence.","correct":false,"explanation":"Clear precedents may guide judges but are not the specific problem here. Very fine factual distinctions create artificial distinctions, making the law less clear."}]},{"id":"a89cf2c1-fb7b-477f-abe6-c7db13214c32","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Before the Practice Statement [1966], the House of Lords treated itself as bound by its own decisions in [ ].","back":"Before the Practice Statement [1966], the House of Lords treated itself as bound by its own decisions in London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898]","correct":true,"explanation":"This case established that the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions, a strict position later relaxed by the Practice Statement [1966]."},{"text":"Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944]","correct":false,"explanation":"Young established when the Court of Appeal may depart from its own decisions. The House of Lords’ former rule of self-binding precedent came from London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898]."},{"text":"Davis v Johnson [1979]","correct":false,"explanation":"Davis confirmed that the Court of Appeal could not disregard a House of Lords decision. The House of Lords’ own self-binding rule was established in London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898]."},{"text":"R v Shivpuri [1986]","correct":false,"explanation":"R v Shivpuri involved the House of Lords using the Practice Statement to overrule an earlier decision. The original self-binding rule came from London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898]."}]},{"id":"8aa39bb6-b9e5-4c96-acdd-9659570c5919","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why can judicial precedent raise democratic concerns?","back":"Unelected judges can shape the law.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Unelected judges can shape the law.","correct":true,"explanation":"Judges are not chosen through elections, yet their interpretations and development of precedent can alter legal rules. This raises concerns about democratic legitimacy and accountability."},{"text":"Elected MPs can shape the law.","correct":false,"explanation":"Parliament’s elected status generally strengthens, rather than undermines, democratic legitimacy. The concern with judicial precedent is that unelected judges can shape legal rules."},{"text":"Binding precedents can clarify the law.","correct":false,"explanation":"Following earlier cases promotes consistency and legal certainty, so it is not itself the democratic objection. The concern is that unelected judges can shape the law."},{"text":"Published judgments can explain the law.","correct":false,"explanation":"Publishing reasons makes judicial decisions more transparent and open to scrutiny, rather than creating the central democratic concern. The issue is that unelected judges can shape the law."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-20","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Law making: judicial precedent","title":"Law making: judicial precedent Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/a-level/law/aqa/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L38"}]}],"topicId":"8ea3801a-8f29-595e-87d3-e010a31e1740","walled":"$L39"}],"$L3a","$L3b"]