References: 1The Convention was signed in Rome in 1950 and entered into force in 1953.

The C onvention guarantees certain rightsincluding the right to life, freedom from tor ture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to fair trail, right to privacy, freedomof religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association.2 But there are situations where the doctrine is applied even if the facts are not similar, e.g., the principle of Donoghue vStevenson (1932) was applied in the c ase of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936).3The term stare decisis comes from t he Latin term stare decisis et non quieta movere which means to stand bydecisions and not disturb that what is settled. If a court is dealing with a case which shares m aterial facts with a previous,already decided case, the court is generally bound by the previous decision and should arrive at the same conclusion.However, the court is not bound by the whole decision but only by the rules and principles th e decision creates and is basedon. 4Robert Mackay, Elements of English Legal System: JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, available from :http://www.lectureme.studio400.me.uk/resources/Elements+of+English+Legal+System ++++PRECEDENT.pdf; last visited:12 April 2012.5It means reasons for the decision arrived at. The part of a judgment considered binding is the ratio decidendi, t he legal principle underlying the decision in the particular case. Other stateme nts of law are obiter dicta and have no more than persuasive force.6It is usuall y the non-binding part of the judgment which is pronounced by the judges by the way which might work as persuasive precedent.7Where a young man seriously injure d in the Hillsborough disaster was being kept alive only by extensive medical ca re andhad no chance of recovery; his doctors (with the support of his family) so ught a declaration that it would be lawful for themto discontinue treatment so t hat he might die peacefully. The precedents were uncertain - the ability to sust ain life artificiallywas relatively recent - and the House of Lords could have d ecided either way. In fact they drew a distinction between activeeuthanasia (whi ch is unlawful) and the withdrawal of treatment (which may be lawful if the trea tment is no longer in the patient's best interests) and granted the declaration sought.8Some of the cases where the HL departed from its previous decisions appl ying the Practice Statement include,inter alia,Conway v Rimmer [1968] 1 All ER 874, HL; Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services [1972] 1 All ER 145, HL;Briti sh Railways v Herrington [1972] 1 All ER 749, HL; Knuller v DPP [1972] 2 All ER 898, HL; R v Shivpuri [1986] 2 AllER 334, HL; R v Howe [1987] 1 All ER 771, HL; R v Kansal (No.2) [2002] 1 All ER 257, HL; R v G & R [2003] 4 All ER 765, HL; A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6. 9For example Lord Denning in many occasions tried unsuccessfully to depart from the decisions of the HL which we willsee in the later part of this essay.10For e xample- in Broome v Cassel [1971] Lord Denning persuaded the other members of th e CA to reach a decision whichwent against the established principle of Rookes v Barnard.11This approached was adopted in the case of Schorsch Meier Gmbh v Henn in [1975] where he argued that the HLs sterling judgment rule in Havana Railways case had changed and hence the rule should no longer be applied.12For example, as the courts are now bound to provide greater redress for breach of rights under the ECHR, its provisionshave affected the remedies that are available from the domes tic courts, and the process under which those rights might or must be accessed. 13Slapper, Gary & Kelly, David; The English Legal System, 11thedition (2010), Routle dge, Abingdon, Oxon, p 46.14See Mendoza v Ghaidan (2002). This case is of partic ular interest in the fact that it shows how the HRA can permit lower courts to a void previous and otherwise binding decisions of the HL. 15Dr. Steve Foster, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL SYSTEM: To follow the Supreme Court or Strasbourg? Judicial precedent and the Human Rights Act 1998, http://alumni.covent ry.ac.uk/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=87 <12 April,2012>. Other References:

1.Barnett, Hilarie; Constitutional & Administrative Law, 8thedition (2010), Routledg e,Abingdon, Oxon.2.Elliott, Catherine & Quinn. Frances; English Legal System, 8thedi tion, (2007), PearsonEducation Limited, Harlow, England.3.Gearey, Adam; Morrison , Wayne and Jago, Robert; The Politics of the Common Law:Perspecctives, Rights, Pr ocesses, Institutions; (2009), Routledge-Cavendish, Abingdon, Oxon.4.Holland, Jame s & Webb, Julian; Learning Legal Rules, 7thedition (2010), OxfordUniversity Press, N ew York.5.Slapper, Gary & Kelly, David; The English Legal System, 11thedition (2010) , Routledge,Abingdon, Oxon. Articles____________________________________________ __________1.AfKRISTINE ROBERG, Common Law &The Human Rights Act 1998,http://law.au.d k/fileadmin/site_files/filer_jura/dokumenter/forskning/rettid/2003/2003.afh-1.pd f <12 April, 2012>2.Robert Mackay, Elements of English Legal System: JUDICIAL PREC EDENT,http://www.lectureme.studio400.me.uk/resources/Elements+of+English+Legal+Sys tem++++PRECEDENT.pdf <12 April, 2012>3.ROMAN KALI?, IS THE ENGLISH DOCTRINE OF JUD ICIALPRECEDENTBECOMING ONLY AN ILLUSION?,http://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/dp08/file s/pdf/mezinaro/kalis.pdf <12 April, 2012>4.Dr. Steve Foster, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGA L SYSTEM: To follow the Supreme Courtor Strasbourg? Judicial precedent and the H uman Rights Act 1998,http://alumni.coventry.ac.uk/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=87 <12 April, 2012>5.Asif Tufal, JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/Judi cial%20Precedent.pdf <12 April, 2012>6.Judicial Reasoning and the HRA - Discussion Paper,http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/hrc/projects/judicial/discussion/Judicial%20 Reasoning%20and%20the%20HRA.pdf <12 April, 2012> 7.Francesca Klug, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Human Ri ghts, LSEJUDICIAL DEFERENCE UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998http://www2.lse.ac.uk/hum anRights/articlesAndTranscripts/Judicial_deference_under_HRA1998. pdf <12 April, 2012>8.THE IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IN THE COURTShttp://www.conservativelawye rs.com/assets/uploads/publications/pdf/Faulks-&-Warnock-Impact-of-HRA.pdf <12 Ap ril, 2012>9.Tanzum Mozammel, Doctrine of Judicial Precedent,http://denningzcave.word press.com/2011/10/21/doctrine-of-judicial-precedent/ <12 April, 2012>. [Download A lthough the Human Rights Act, 1998 has impacted on the judicial understanding of precedent, the underlying features of the doctrine remain unchanged Download (.doc)