No doubt the doctrine of the judicial precedent has proved to be a real advantage to society. However, we cannot neglect the fact that there are some disadvantages associated with this doctrine. 1. The very first disadvantage of this doctrine is the fact that not all the judges will have the same conclusion on a matter; therefore increasing the complexity of a case. Just like human beings differ from each other physically, they also differ mentally. Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed. …show more content…
Furthermore, another disadvantage of the doctrine of the judicial precedents is injustice. The harsh rules of judicial precedents might create injustice in individual cases. Indeed, law is created basing itself on past experiences, but we should take into consideration that we are unable to build more experiences if the first case is binding. The doctrine of the judicial precedents restricts the development of the law. Since we live in a dynamic world and things are always changing, it is quite of a disadvantage to stick with a law on the experience of yesterday. Lord Denning (Maduka 2010 cited Denning 1979), the most famous English lawyer of the 20th century known as the ‘people’s judge’ argued