Ratio
Decidendi
The literal
meaning of ‘ratio decidendi’ is “the reason for deciding”. Black’s Law
Dictionary has provided many definitions of this term. Let us discuss some of
them.
1. The principle
or rule of law on which a court’s decision is founded.
2. The rule of
law on which a later court thinks that a previous court founded its decision.
3. It is a
general rule without which a case must have been decided otherwise.
4. “The phrase ‘’the
ratio decidendi of a case’ is slightly ambiguous. It may mean either (1)
the rule that the judge who decided the case intended to lay down and apply to
the facts, or (2) the rule that a later concedes him to have had the power to
lay down”[1].
5. “There are
two steps involved in the ascertainment of ratio decidendi. First, it is
necessary to determine the facts of the case as seen by the judge; secondly, it
is necessary to discover which of those facts were treated as material by the
judge”[2].
Goodhart’s View
on ratio decidendi
However, Goodhart
did not accept the classical definitions mentioned above. His criticisms were:
a. That every case must contain an ascertainable principle of law, even
though there may be no opinion delivered by the judge.
b. That the statement of law may be too wide or too narrow.
While defending
his definition, he said that “the whole point of my article was based on the
proposition that every case must contain a binding principle, but that
this binding principle is not necessarily to be found in the statement of the
law made by the judge”.
He also said
that “the judges must interpret statutes, but it would be misleading to say
that they are therefore constructing them[3]”.
He even said to
the extent that “the phrase ‘ratio decidendi’ is misleading because
the reason which the judge gives for his decision is not binding and may not
correctly represent the principle”.
He suggested
that the ‘principle of the case’ could be found by determining
(a) The facts
treated by the judge as material, and
(b) His decision
as based on them.
The judge,
therefore, reaches a conclusion upon the facts as he sees them. It is on
these facts that he bases his judgment, and not on any others. It follows that
our task in analysing a case is not to state the facts and the conclusion, but
to state the material facts as seen by the judge and his conclusion based on
them. It is by his choice of the material facts that the judge creates
law[4].
Thus, Goodhart
placed all the emphasis on the material facts as seen by the judge, and not
on the material facts as seen by anyone else.
Current
Trends in the English Legal System
Most of
contemporary English authors are of the view that it is not the decision that
binds (or is overruled); it is the rule of law contained within the decision.
This element of the decision is termed as the ratio decidendi, and not
every statement of law made by a judge in the case forms part of this ratio[5].
Every
decision contains the following basic ingredients:
1. Findings or
material facts, both direct and inferential;
2. Statements of
the Principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts;
and
3. A judgment
(or judgments) based on the combined effect of 1 and 2.
Please note that
an inferential finding of fact is the inference that the judge draws from the
direct or perceptible facts. For example, negligence may be inferred from the
direct facts of the speed of a vehicle, the length of skid marks, and the state
of the road. Negligence is thus as inferential finding of fact.
For the purposes
of the parties, point number 3 is the material element in the decision, for it
is what ultimately determines their rights and liabilities in relation to the
subject matter of the case. However, for the purpose of the doctrine of
precedent, point number 2 is the vital element in the decision, and it is this
that is termed the ratio decidendi. Thus the ratio decidendi may
be defined as the statement of law applied to the legal problems raised by the
facts, upon which the decision is based[6].
Not every
statement of law in a judgment is binding; only those statement that based upon
the facts and upon which the decision is based are binding. Any other statement
of law is superfluous and is described as obiter dictum (it means ‘by
the way’). It should not, however be concluded from this that obiter dicta
are of little or no weight or importance.
Obiter
Dicta
There are two
types of obiter dicta.
1. A statement
of law is regarded as obiter if it is based upon facts that either were
not found to be material or were not found to exist at all.
2. Even where a
statement of law is based on the facts as found, it will be regarded as obiter
if it does not form the basis of the decision. A statement of law made in
support of a dissenting judgment is an obvious example.
Although obiter
dicta lack binding authority, they may nevertheless have a strong
persuasive influence[7].
Next Article: Supreme Court of India on ratio decidendi
Complete List of Jurisprudence Notes
[1]
Glanville Williams, Learning the Law, 75 (11th Edition),
1982.
[2] Rupert
Cross and J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law, 65-66 (4th
Edition), 1991.
[3]
Goodhart, The ratio decidendi of a Case, Modern Law Review, Volume 22,
No. 2, 1959.
[4] Essays
in Jurisprudence and the Common Law, pp. 1-26 (1931).
[5] R.
Ward and A. Akhtar, Walker & Walker’s English Legal System, 11th edition,
(Oxford University Press, 2011).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment