On Mar 27, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Phil,
On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:14 AM, jayjg wrote:
I would imagine it would have implications for all countries with legal systems based on British Common Law, which I would think would look at the ruling in this case when deciding similar cases.
It would depend--the American legal system is based on English common law, but American courts rarely, if ever, take into account English court precedents after the colonial period. Commonwealth countries may still take into account contemporary English precedents, however.
AIUI, that's due to bog-standard insecurity --- "we can't let those dirty forners tell us what to do!"
The Australian High Court recently (well, fifteen years ago ...) looked to Zimbabwe and Canada (IIRC) for guidance. I believe the argument goes something like: "our law was the same up until X date, therefore --- barring decisions that drastically change this area of law --- we're likely to be expected to come to similar conclusions".
The United States went to war twice to ensure that the English weren't in charge of our laws. Other former colonies don't seem to appreciate that :)
Do the Commonwealth nations grant to English rulings stare decisis standing as court precedents, or do they simply look to them for guidance?