skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50723 Find in a Library
Title: AUTHORITY OF ENGLISH APPELLATE COURTS' JURISPRUDENCE BEFORE AUSTRALIAN SUPREME COURTS
Journal: UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA LAW REVIEW  Volume:5  Issue:3  Dated:(1977)  Pages:229-307
Author(s): J K BENTIL
Corporate Author: University of Tasmania Law Review
Australia
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 9
Sponsoring Agency: University of Tasmania Law Review
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: THE IMPACT OF DECISIONS OR PRONOUNCEMENTS ON GENERAL POINTS OF LAW MADE BY THE ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON PRONOUNCEMENTS MADE BY AUSTRALIAN COURTS IS ASSESSED.
Abstract: COURTS IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND QUEENSLAND HAVE TENDED TO TREAT PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL ON GENERAL POINTS OF LAW AS BINDING. OTHER AREAS OF AUSTRALIA, HOWEVER, DO NOT VIEW THESE PRONOUNCEMENTS AS BINDING. IN ADDITION TO CASES INVOLVING THE ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL, LITIGATION IS CITED WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THE IMPACT OF DECISIONS MADE BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED IN TERMS OF THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY AUSTRALIAN COURTS. IN GENERAL, IT APPEARS THAT MOST AUSTRALIAN COURTS HAVE ADOPTED A MODIFIED ATTITUDE TOWARD THE AUTHORITATIVE FORCE OF PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COMMON LAW, CONSIDERING THESE PRONOUNCEMENTS TO BE PERSUASIVE RATHER THAN BINDING. BECAUSE CERTAIN PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS ARE CONTROVERSIAL, IT MAY NOT BE RATIONAL TO TREAT SUCH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS BINDING ON ANY COMMON LAW COURT OUTSIDE OF ENGLAND. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A STRONG BELIEF BY THE AUSTRALIAN JUDICIARY IN ITS OWN DECISIONS AND PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE LAW GENERALLY AND ON COMMON LAW PARTICULARLY IS ESSENTIAL IF JUSTICE IS TO BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING LOCAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. (DEP)
Index Term(s): Appellate courts; Australia; England; Judicial decisions; Reform
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50723

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.