The Role of Judges | English Legal System - İngiliz Hukuk Sisteminde Hakimlerin Rolü

 

he Role of Judges in the English Legal System

Introduction:

This document provides an overview of the role of judges within the English legal system, based on excerpts from a lesson on the topic. It explores the functions of judges at different levels of the court structure, from inferior courts to the Supreme Court, and highlights the distinct roles judges play compared to juries. The document also considers the role of appeals and the significance of precedent.

Key Themes & Ideas:

1. Hierarchical Court Structure and Judicial Roles:

• The English legal system has a hierarchical structure, with judges operating at various levels. The source emphasizes a distinction between "inferior" courts (e.g., County Court, Crown Court, Magistrates Court) and "superior" courts (e.g., High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court).
• The role of a judge is significantly influenced by the court level. Judges at lower courts are involved in the day-to-day hearing of cases. Superior courts tend to deal more with appeals and legal interpretation.
• The briefing document will outline the role of judges at each level of court.

1. Role of Judges vs. Juries:

• A crucial distinction is drawn between the "Trier of Law" (the judge) and the "Trier of Fact" (the jury).
• Judges carry a "legal burden," which means they are responsible for directing the jury on matters of law and instructing them on how to apply the law to the facts. The source uses the following wording to emphasize the judges role, "the judge will direct the jury on the matters of Law and will also essentially tell the jury and inform the jury or instruct the jury should I say uh in essentially coming to the conclusion that if um this is the case um that you are of the opinion of this factual analysis for example if you believe this factual thing to be true or to be false then you will find for uh the defendant or for the prosecution".
• Juries carry an "evidential burden" by weighing the evidence to determine facts.

1. Inferior Courts and First Instance Cases:

• County Courts: Primarily hear civil cases.
• Crown Courts: Primarily hear "indictable" criminal cases (more serious offences), which are differentiated from summary (non-indictable) offences dealt with by magistrates' courts
• Magistrates' Courts: Hear non-indictable offences (summary offences).
• Inferior courts often hear cases "at first instance," meaning the initial trial in a judicial setting. Some civil cases may also involve a jury.

1. High Courts and Appeals:

• The High Court often hears cases at first instance, but also hears appeals from lower courts (County and Crown courts).
• This means the high court has a similar role to inferior courts but also functions as an appeals court.

1. Court of Appeal and Points of Law:

• The Court of Appeal focuses on appeals from lower courts, dealing exclusively with disputes related to the application of law, not with re-examining points of fact. The source states "the appeals process is based on disputes relating to points of law not relating to points of fact"
• The Court of Appeal determines whether lower courts correctly applied the law, considering new areas of law or disagreements over legal interpretation.
• The Court of Appeal operates in both civil and criminal jurisdictions.
• Court of Appeal decisions are made by an odd number of Justices of Appeal (usually three, sometimes five for significant cases). This is done to ensure that a clear decision is made and avoid a split result.

1. Supreme Court: Final Point of Appeal:

• The Supreme Court is the final point of appeal within the domestic legal system. It primarily deals with appeals on matters of law, not fact.
• The source states "the Supreme Court just like the the court of appeal will hear cases on appeal from both criminal and civil jurisdiction there will also be um points and matters of law again not points and matters of facts"
• While appeals are most often civil, some criminal cases will progress to the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court cases often involve matters of constitutional or administrative law, including judicial review.
• The source highlights the significance of the Supreme Court by mentioning the Miller cases relating to Brexit as being highly important and publicized.

1. Binding Precedent:

• Decisions made by the Supreme Court create "binding precedent".
• This precedent is binding on all lower courts in the legal system and cannot be overriden by them.

Key Quotes:

• "the judge will direct the jury on the matters of Law and will also essentially tell the jury and inform the jury or instruct the jury should I say uh in essentially coming to the conclusion that if um this is the case um that you are of the opinion of this factual analysis for example if you believe this factual thing to be true or to be false then you will find for uh the defendant or for the prosecution" - illustrating the Judges role with a jury.
• "the appeals process is based on disputes relating to points of law not relating to points of fact" - illustrating the role of appeal courts.
• "the Supreme Court just like the the court of appeal will hear cases on appeal from both criminal and civil jurisdiction there will also be um points and matters of law again not points and matters of facts" - illustrating the role of the supreme court in relation to law and not fact.

Conclusion:

The role of judges in the English legal system is multifaceted and varies depending on the court level. Judges are primarily responsible for the correct application of the law, ensuring fair trials, and in higher courts, shaping the future of the law through their interpretation and development of legal principles. The clear distinction between their role as "Trier of Law" and the jury's role as "Trier of Fact" is critical to the functioning of the system. The hierarchical structure, with its appeals processes, allows for challenges and refinements to legal interpretations ensuring consistency and the development of binding precedent.

İngiliz Hukuk Sisteminde Hakimlerin Rolü

Giriş:

Bu belge, İngiltere ve Galler'deki yargı sisteminde hakimlerin rollerini incelemektedir. Daha önceki derslerde yargının yapısı ele alınmış, bu derste ise farklı seviyelerdeki hakimlerin görevleri ayrıntılı olarak incelenecektir.

Temel Temalar ve Fikirler:

• Yargı Yapısı: Yargı sistemi, alt mahkemelerden (inferior courts) üst mahkemelere (superior courts) doğru bir hiyerarşi izler. Bu hiyerarşi, davaların görülme ve temyiz süreçlerini belirler.
• Hakimlerin Atanması: Hakimlerin atanma süreci, Judicial Appointments Commission (Yargı Atama Komisyonu) ve Lord Şansölyesi'nin rolünü içerir. 2005 tarihli Anayasal Reform Yasası bu süreçte değişiklikler getirmiştir.
• Alt Mahkemelerdeki Hakimlerin Rolü: Alt mahkemelerdeki hakimler, genellikle davaları ilk derece mahkemesi olarak dinlerler.
• County Court (İlçe Mahkemesi): Hukuk davalarını görür.
• Crown Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi): İddianame gerektiren (indictable) ceza davalarını görür. "Indictable criminal cases…is just a delineation between indictable and non- indictable or summary offenses".
• Bu mahkemelerde jüri de bulunabilir. Jüri, olgusal (fact) kanıt yüküne sahipken, hakim yasal (law) kanıt yüküne sahiptir. "The judge will direct the jury on the matters of Law and will also essentially tell the jury and inform the jury or instruct the jury should I say".
• Yüksek Mahkeme (High Court): Hem ilk derece davalarına bakar hem de alt mahkemelerden gelen temyiz başvurularını değerlendirir.
• Temyiz Mahkemesi (Court of Appeal): Alt mahkemelerin hukuk uygulamalarındaki hatalarına ilişkin temyiz başvurularını değerlendirir. Bu mahkeme, olgusal değil, hukuki konulara odaklanır. "The appeals process is based on disputes relating to points of law not relating to points of fact". Kararlar, çoğunlukla üç, bazen de beş hakimden oluşan heyetler tarafından alınır.
• Yüksek Mahkeme (Supreme Court): Ülkedeki en yüksek temyiz mahkemesidir. Hem ceza hem de hukuk davalarındaki temyiz başvurularını değerlendirir. Özellikle anayasal ve idari hukuk konularıyla ilgilenir.
• Yüksek Mahkeme'nin kararları, bağlayıcı emsal (binding precedent) oluşturur. Bu emsaller, alt mahkemeler için yol gösterici niteliktedir ve bu mahkemeler tarafından göz ardı edilemez. "The decisions made by the Supreme Court will actually create something known as binding precedent".
• Örnek olarak, Brexit ile ilgili Miller davaları (özellikle hükümetin parlamentoyu askıya alma kararı) verilmiştir. "The most famous arguably the most famous cases were the two Miller cases which takes place in relation to brexit".
• Uluslararası Mahkemeler: Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (European Court of Human Rights) ve Avrupa Adalet Divanı (European Court of Justice) gibi uluslararası mahkemeler, bazı durumlarda İngiltere yargı sistemi üzerinde bağlayıcı yetkiye sahip olabilir.

Önemli Alıntılar:

• "The judge will direct the jury on the matters of Law and will also essentially tell the jury and inform the jury or instruct the jury should I say" (Hakimin jüriye hukuki konularda yol göstermesi ve jüriyi bilgilendirmesi).
• "The appeals process is based on disputes relating to points of law not relating to points of fact" (Temyiz süreci, olgusal değil, hukuki konulara ilişkin anlaşmazlıklara dayanır).
• "The decisions made by the Supreme Court will actually create something known as binding precedent" (Yüksek Mahkeme'nin kararları, bağlayıcı emsal oluşturur).
• "The most famous arguably the most famous cases were the two Miller cases which takes place in relation to brexit" (En ünlü davalar, Brexit ile ilgili Miller davalarıydı).

Sonuç:

Bu belge, İngiliz hukuk sisteminde hakimlerin rollerini ve farklı mahkeme türlerindeki görevlerini özetlemektedir. Hakimlerin yargı sistemindeki önemi, davaların doğru ve adil bir şekilde sonuçlandırılması için kritik öneme sahiptir.

The Judiciary | English Legal System - İngiliz Yargı Sistemi: Yapı, Rol ve Reformlar

 

The English Judiciary

Introduction:

This briefing document examines the structure, role, and appointment process of the judiciary in England and Wales, as outlined in the provided excerpt from "The Judiciary | English Legal System." The source material transitions from discussions of legal principles to the structural components of the English legal and adjudication systems.

Key Themes and Ideas:

1. Role of the Judiciary:

• The primary function of the judiciary is to "hear cases to hear disputes and to adjudicate on those disputes in a fair and neutral manner." This involves applying established law (from Parliament and precedents) to the specific facts of each case. The judiciary acts as an impartial arbiter, ensuring that law is consistently and justly applied.
• The judiciary's role is crucial in the overall functioning of the English legal system, moving "away from the more theoretical legal substantively legal um principles…towards some of the more con uh structural components of the English legal system."

1. Structure of the Courts:

• The judiciary is divided into a hierarchical structure, broadly categorised as the "Superior Judiciary" and the "Inferior Judiciary." This is not an indication of the quality of the judges themselves, but rather the authority they wield in interpreting and establishing legal precedent.
• Superior Judiciary: These judges sit in the higher courts, which have greater authority over legal interpretation. These courts include:
• The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: The "supreme ultimate law adjudication Authority."
• The Court of Appeal.
• The High Court.
• Inferior Judiciary: Judges in the lower courts, handling cases that are generally considered "more trivial," but which may nevertheless be significant. These courts include:
• Circuit Courts.
• Crown Courts.
• County Courts.
• Magistrates' Courts.
• It is important to note that while cases in inferior courts may be considered less complex, they still have the potential to be significant and to have a notable impact on those involved.

1. Judicial Appointments and Independence:

• Historical Context: Historically, the appointment of judges was under the remit of the Lord Chancellor, who conducted a "secret selection process." This was viewed as problematic because the Lord Chancellor was also a member of the Cabinet (executive branch) and Speaker of the House of Lords (legislative branch), leading to a perceived "politicization of the appointment process." This raised concerns about judicial independence, especially as "Court decisions are often done at least when we talk about things of a constitutional or or an administrative law matter [which] are cases which involve in a lot of cases the government".
• Constitutional Reform Act 2005: This act brought significant reforms to address the issues of judicial independence:
• Reduced Role of Lord Chancellor: The Lord Chancellor’s position was reformed so that they no longer sit in all three branches of government. This was to avoid "a violation of the separation of powers."
• Creation of the Supreme Court: The Law Lords were removed from the House of Lords and moved to the new Supreme Court in 2009. This established a distinct, stand-alone Supreme Court to provide a clear separation from the legislature.
• Establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC): The JAC is an "independent commission tasked with the job of appointing new judges to the Judiciary." The JAC does not decide on appointments but takes "the role of interviewing vetting and selecting potential candidates for recommendations to the Lord Chancellor."
• The Current Process: The JAC’s role ensures a more independent process by shortlisting candidates and presenting recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, who still makes the final recommendation for selection.

Key Quotes:

• "The main aim of the Judiciary as you may understand already is essentially to hear cases to hear disputes and to adjudicate on those disputes in a fair and neutral manner."
• "The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 made a number of reforms to the process of selecting judges"
• "... it is seen as a politicization of the process it should be something of a of an independent process."
• "the jaac... takes the role of interviewing vetting and selecting potential candidates for recommendations to the Lord Chancellor"

Conclusion:

The English judiciary plays a vital role in the application of the law, and there is a clear separation of powers between the different branches of government. The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 was pivotal in establishing a fairer and more transparent appointment process, designed to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. While the Lord Chancellor retains an element of control in the appointment process, the involvement of the JAC has created a far more robust system, and one which minimises the risk of politicisation of the courts.

İngiliz Yargı Sistemi

Giriş:

Bu belge, İngiliz hukuk sisteminin yapısı, yargının rolü ve gücü üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Kaynak, teorik hukuki ilkelerden İngiliz yargı sisteminin yapısal bileşenlerine geçiş yapmaktadır.

Temel Temalar ve Önemli Fikirler:

• Yargı Tanımı: "Yargı", İngiltere ve Galler'deki mahkemelerde oturan tüm hakimlerin kolektif bir terimidir. Temel amacı, davaları dinlemek ve anlaşmazlıkları adil ve tarafsız bir şekilde karara bağlamaktır. "Esasen davaları dinlemek, anlaşmazlıkları duymak ve bu anlaşmazlıkları adil ve tarafsız bir şekilde karara bağlamaktır."
• Yargının Yapısı: Yargı, "üstün yargı" ve "aşağı yargı" olarak farklı seviyelere ayrılmıştır. Bu ayrım, birinin diğerinden daha iyi olduğunu göstermez, ancak bazılarının daha fazla yetkiye sahip olduğunu gösterir.
• Üstün Yargı: Yüksek mahkemelerde oturan hakimlerdir. Bunlar arasında Birleşik Krallık Yüksek Mahkemesi, Temyiz Mahkemesi ve Yüksek Mahkeme bulunmaktadır.
• Aşağı Yargı: Alt mahkemelerde oturan hakimlerdir. Bunlara, örneğin, Devre Mahkemesi hakimleri, Ceza Mahkemesi hakimleri, İlçe Mahkemeleri ve Sulh Ceza Mahkemeleri dahildir.
• Hakim Seçimi:
• Tarihsel Süreç: Başlangıçta, hakimler Lord Şansölye'nin gizli bir seçim süreciyle seçilirdi. Ancak, Lord Şansölye'nin kabine üyesi olması nedeniyle bu durum tartışmalıydı ve atama sürecinin siyasallaşması olarak görülüyordu.
• Anayasal Reform Yasası 2005: Bu yasa, hakim seçimi sürecinde bir dizi reform getirmiştir.
• Lord Şansölye'nin rolünde reformlar yapılmıştır; artık hükümetin üç kolunda da yer almamaktadır.
• Lordlar Kamarası'ndaki hukuk lordlarının rolü kaldırılmış ve 2009'da açılan Yüksek Mahkeme kurulmuştur.
• Yargı Atama Komisyonu (Judicial Appointments Commission - JAC) kurulmuştur.
• Yargı Atama Komisyonu (JAC): JAC, yeni hakimlerin atanmasıyla görevli bağımsız bir komisyondur. Lord Şansölye'nin rolünü tamamen ortadan kaldırmasa da, potansiyel adayların görüşülmesini, incelenmesini ve seçilmesini sağlayarak Lord Şansölye'ye tavsiyelerde bulunur.

Önemli Alıntılar:

• "Esasen davaları dinlemek, anlaşmazlıkları duymak ve bu anlaşmazlıkları adil ve tarafsız bir şekilde karara bağlamaktır." (Yargının rolünü tanımlarken)
• "...Anayasal Reform Yasası 2005, hakim seçimi sürecinde bir dizi reform getirmiştir." (Reformun önemini vurgularken)

Sonuç:

Bu kaynak, İngiliz yargı sisteminin temel yapısı ve hakimlerin atanma süreci hakkında genel bir bakış sunmaktadır. Özellikle Anayasal Reform Yasası 2005'in getirdiği değişiklikler ve JAC'nin rolü vurgulanmaktadır. Bu reformlar, yargının bağımsızlığını güvence altına almayı amaçlamaktadır.

Judicial Precedent | English Legal System - İngiliz Yargı Sistemi | Yargısal İçtihat

Judicial Precedent in the English Legal System

Introduction

This document provides a summary of the key concepts related to judicial precedent (also known as case law or common law) in the English legal system, as outlined in the provided source material. The document focuses on the principles of stare decisis, ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, and different types of precedents (binding, persuasive, original, distinguishing and overruling). Understanding these concepts is crucial for anyone studying or practicing law in England and Wales.

Key Themes and Principles

1. The Importance of Judicial Precedent:

• Judicial precedent forms a significant portion of the English legal system, alongside statute law (legislation). It represents law created by judges through their decisions in previous cases.
• The principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided") is the foundation of judicial precedent. This means that when a point of law is settled by a previous judgment, that judgment should guide future cases. As stated in the source: "we stand by what has been said and do not unsettle the established."
• This principle promotes consistency and predictability within the legal system.
• The concept of judicial precedent is the idea that a case decision made in a previous case ought to be binding on the reasoning of future cases.

1. Hierarchy of Courts and Binding Precedent:

• The English legal system operates on a hierarchical basis. Higher courts have the power to bind lower courts through their decisions.
• Lower courts are bound by the decisions of precedent handed down by the higher courts. If it's the other way around, the lower courts are bound to decisions of precedent applied by the higher courts.
• A "binding precedent" is a decision by a higher court that a lower court must follow.
• This top-down approach means that decisions of the Supreme Court bind all lower courts, decisions of the Court of Appeal bind the High Court and County Court etc.

1. Ratio Decidendi (The Reason for the Decision):

• The ratio decidendi is the core legal reasoning behind a court's judgment. It is the part of the judgment that determines the outcome of a case and sets a binding precedent.
• The ratio decidendi is described as: "any rule expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion."
• Identifying the ratio decidendi is a crucial skill for law students and practitioners, as it's the legally binding element of a case.
• The ratio decidendi of a case will be considered in the application of precedent.

1. Obiter Dicta (Other Things Said):

• Obiter dicta refers to the parts of a judgment that are not directly necessary for the decision. This can include comments, hypotheticals, or explanations that go beyond the core reasoning.
• As the source states: "the obit a dictor of a case is simply just all the other things which are said."
• Obiter dicta is not binding on other courts, but it can be persuasive and influential, particularly for developing new legal principles in the future. As stated, it "can lay the groundworks for the ratio of a case" and "can provide a useful amount of contextualization for the ratio of a case."
• The "neighbour principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson is given as an example of obiter dicta influencing future cases and forming the basis for new legal precedent.

1. Persuasive Precedent:

• Persuasive precedent is a weaker form of precedent. It refers to previous decisions that a court may choose to follow, but is not legally bound to do so.
• The purpose of persuasive precedent is to "inform future decisions."

1. Outcomes of Applying Judicial Precedent: The application of judicial precedent can result in three primary outcomes: * Original precedent: This is where a court creates a new precedent because there is no existing precedent for a point of law. If there is no established law, the court creates one. * Distinguishing precedent: This involves a court deciding not to apply an existing precedent because the facts of the case are significantly different. This can lead to a new precedent being established. The court has to split the path into two and a new precedent is established. * Overruling precedent: This happens when a court decides that a previous precedent was incorrect and must be overturned, thereby setting a new precedent. Overruling can completely overturn all parts of a precedent, or can apply a more restrictive approach which overrules some parts but not others.

Conclusion

The doctrine of judicial precedent is a fundamental element of the English legal system. It is based on the idea that like cases should be treated alike, guided by previous decisions. Understanding the principles of stare decisis, the nature of binding precedents, the legal significance of the ratio decidendi and the non-binding nature of obiter dicta, as well as how precedents can be developed, distinguished, or overruled is crucial to understanding how the English legal system operates. These principles provide stability and consistency while allowing for the legal system to adapt and grow as new situations arise.

Yargısal İçtihat (Judicial Precedent)

Bu brifing dokümanı, "Judicial Precedent | English Legal System" kaynağından elde edilen bilgileri özetleyerek, İngiliz hukuk sisteminde yargısal içtihadın temel kavramlarını ve işleyişini açıklamaktadır. Kaynak, özellikle hukuk öğrencileri (LLB, GDL, SQE) için yargısal içtihat prensiplerinin anlaşılmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Temel Temalar ve Önemli Fikirler:

• Yargısal İçtihatın Önemi: Yargısal içtihat, İngiliz hukuk sisteminin önemli bir kaynağını oluşturur. Mahkemeler tarafından verilen kararlar, gelecekteki benzer davalar için bağlayıcı olabilir veya yol gösterici nitelikte olabilir.
• "Stare Decisis" İlkesi: Bu ilke, yargısal içtihadın temelini oluşturur ve "söylenene bağlı kalmak ve yerleşmiş olanı bozmamak" anlamına gelir. Kaynakta belirtildiği gibi, Latince "stare decisis et non quieta movere" ifadesinden gelir ve "bir hukuk noktasının yerleşmiş olduğu veya belirli bir hukuk noktası hakkında karar verildiği durumlarda, bu fikirlerin bir hakime mevcut bir davada nasıl ilerleyeceği ve bir kuralı nasıl uygulayacağı konusunda yol göstermesi gerektiği" anlamına gelir. Başka bir deyişle, önceki kararların, benzer davalarda emsal teşkil etmesi ve tutarlılığın sağlanması esastır.
• Ratio Decidendi: Bir davanın "ratio decidendi"si, kararın gerekçesidir. Kaynak, bunu "Yargıcın sonucuna ulaşmasında gerekli bir adım olarak açıkça veya zımnen ele aldığı herhangi bir kural" olarak tanımlar. Hukuk öğrencilerinin bir davayı okurken "ratio decidendi"yi belirleyebilmesi önemlidir, çünkü bu kısım gelecekteki davalar için bağlayıcı olabilir. "Ratio decidendi", kararın temelini oluşturur ve gelecekteki mahkemeler için emsal teşkil eder.
• Obiter Dicta: Bir davanın "obiter dicta"sı, kararın gerekçesi olmayan, "söylenen diğer şeyler"dir. Bu kısımlar bağlayıcı olmasa da, gelecekteki davalar için yol gösterici olabilir ve hatta gelecekteki "ratio decidendi"lerin temelini oluşturabilir. Kaynak, "obiter dictum"un "bir davanın ratio'su için zemin hazırlayabileceğini ve ayrıca bir davanın ratio'su için faydalı miktarda bağlamsallaştırma sağlayabileceğini ve hatta gelecekteki davaların ratio'su haline gelecek olan hukukta çeşitli farklı ilkeler aşılayabileceğini" belirtir.
• Bağlayıcı ve İkna Edici İçtihat: Yüksek mahkemeler tarafından verilen kararlar, alt mahkemeler için bağlayıcıdır. Bu, alt mahkemelerin, yüksek mahkemenin "ratio decidendi"sine uyması gerektiği anlamına gelir. İkna edici içtihat ise, diğer mahkemelerden (örneğin, başka bir ülkenin mahkemeleri) gelen kararları ifade eder. Bu kararlar bağlayıcı olmasa da, bir mahkemeyi belirli bir yönde karar vermeye ikna edebilir.
• İçtihat Uygulamasında Üç Sonuç:Orijinal İçtihat (Original Precedent): Hukukun belirli bir noktasında daha önce bir karar olmaması durumunda, hakimin yeni bir hukuksal içtihat yaratması ve yeni bir kural uygulaması gerekir.
• Ayırt Edici İçtihat (Distinguishing Precedent): Daha önce oluşturulmuş bir içtihatın mevcut olması ancak davanın kendine özgü koşulları nedeniyle uygulanmaması durumunda ortaya çıkar. Bu durumda yeni bir içtihat oluşturulur.
• Geçersiz Kılan İçtihat (Overruling Precedent): Hakimlerin önceki bir içtihadın yanlış olduğuna karar vermesi durumunda, yeni bir içtihat oluşturulur ve önceki karar geçersiz kılınır. Bu, kısmi veya tamamen olabilir.

Önemli Alıntılar:

• "the concept is that we stand by what has been said and do not unsettle the established this is the concept of judicial precedent and the Latin Maxim is often reduced and condensed to just the principle of stared deisis"
• "...the ratio decidendi of a case is the part of the Judgment which decides the outcome…any rule expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion"
• "...the Octor ultimately um can lay the groundworks for the ratio of a case and also can provide a useful amount of contextualization for the ratio of a case..."

Sonuç:

Yargısal içtihat, İngiliz hukuk sisteminde önemli bir role sahiptir. "Stare decisis" ilkesi, hukuki istikrarı ve tutarlılığı sağlamayı amaçlar. "Ratio decidendi" ve "obiter dicta" kavramlarını anlamak, hukuk öğrencilerinin ve uygulayıcıların dava analizinde ve hukuki argüman geliştirmede başarılı olmaları için kritik öneme sahiptir.

Türkçe-İngilizce Hukuk Sözlüğü