 Judges may not always have to follow a previous precedent and in some cases, may be free to create new precedents. Apart from following a binding precedent, there are four other ways that judges can treat previous decisions.  These are: 1. Distinguishing 2. Reversing 3. Overruling 4. Disapproving

 Where the facts of a case are sufficiently different from a previous case, the decision in the previous case will not be considered binding.  Provided a judge is satisfied that the facts of a case are sufficiently different that an injustice would result from following an earlier precedent, then distinguishing is considered an appropriate means of avoiding the use of that precedent.  Read case Davies v. Waldron (1989)- pg 200

 Where a higher court hears a case on appeal and decides that the lower court which had heard the case had wrongly decided the case, it will reverse the decision.  The ratio decidendi of the lower court is no longer valid. It is replaced by the ratio decidendi of the higher court.  Read Queen v. Tomas Klamo pg 201

 When a superior court decides not to follow an earlier precedent of a lower court in a different case it can overrule the previous precedent.  This means a new case in a higher court creates a new precedent that makes the previous precedent inapplicable. It can do this because it is not bound by precedents created in lower courts.  When a precedent is overruled, the new ratio decidendi from the latest case has the effect of becoming the precedent to be followed in the future.

 Courts at the same level are not bound by each other’s decisions.  Where a judge in a court refuses to follow an earlier decision of another judge at the same level, they are said to have disapproved the decision.  In other words, they have demonstrated that their opinion of the law differs from that of the previous judge.  Read the Trigwell case- pg 203

 Complete questions 1-4, 6-7 and 9 on page