Jack Griffiths
10182589
Unit 23
P6
A Precedent is a type of law created by judges in which it is used as a guide to deal with the original
precedent by referring to similar factors of the original precedent. The defence team would refer to
earlier cases that have already taken place if there are no cases that can refer to the current trial.
Precedents are created like it is a unique case that has nothing to refer to that case in which the
judges then address the reasons of the ruling given and the other possible decisions that could be
made for different possibilities or events that occurred in that case.
Binding Authority is where a source of law such as a similar case is used by judges to evaluate their
decision for the case being held. In the case of R v Armel Gnango, the decision was that Gnango was
given 10 years in prison, whereas bandana man was given life in prison. This relates to the past case
of R v Mohan, which is where Mohan was charged for attempted murder of a police officer but he
was found not guilty as it wasn’t intended to attempt to murder the police officer as Mohan
responded to the police officer’s signal to stop but had no intention to drive towards the police
officer, suggesting that the R v Armel Gnango and R v Mohan cases are similar because neither
Gnango or Mohan committed a murder in their separate cases.
Persuasive Authority is where past cases that are similar to the current trial in court are talked about
in which are used to persuade the judge or the jury to think about the decisions that should be made
in court. Relating to the R v R rape case, the defendant was found not guilty because his wife who
were separated didn’t say no to his attempt to commit a sexual offence on her.
Ratio Decidendi is a Latin phrase for ‘the reason’ so it is used in court to clarify why that decision has
been made in court by the judge. In terms of the case of R v Armel Gnango, the reason for Gnango
being sentenced for 10 years in prison was because despite that he didn’t murder Magda Pnewskia,
he was still involved in the shooting that took place but the main reason for Gnango receiving 10
years in prison was since he had a weapon as self-defence, therefore he wasn’t guilty of murder as
he didn’t fire the bullet to hit Magda Pnewskia.
Obiter Statements are the opinions and decision from the judges in court that decide what sentence
the defendant would receive if they were to be found guilty. According to the R v Armel Gnango
case, Gnango was received a 10-year sentence in prison due to being involved in the shooting of
Magda Pnewskia, but the obiter statement would be considered because Gnango believed that he
wasn’t completely involved in the murder of Magda Pnewskia.
Precedents are distinguished by looking at facts of the case that is being held in court in different
ways. Precedents look at two similar cases to the trial in court in which the case with the most
similar facts to the current case in court is the one similar case that the precedents follow. Although,
the case must be appropriate to be used in court because if the case is weak, then people can appeal
against the decision made in court. Referring to the R v Armel Gnango case, Gnango was given 10
years in prison for being involved in the murder of Magda Pnewskia in which Bandana Man was
responsible for firing the bullet and mistakenly hitting the victim. However, Gnango appealed against
the decision made in court because his belief was that his involvement in the murder of Magda
Pnewskia was a minor involvement, whereas Bandana Man was sentenced to life in prison. There is
a possibility however that the decision could’ve been reversed and the reason for this is because a
10-year sentence would’ve been given to someone who was fully involved in a murder that was
committed, therefore Gnango’s statement was seen as a harsh statement to give in court as he
10182589
Unit 23
P6
A Precedent is a type of law created by judges in which it is used as a guide to deal with the original
precedent by referring to similar factors of the original precedent. The defence team would refer to
earlier cases that have already taken place if there are no cases that can refer to the current trial.
Precedents are created like it is a unique case that has nothing to refer to that case in which the
judges then address the reasons of the ruling given and the other possible decisions that could be
made for different possibilities or events that occurred in that case.
Binding Authority is where a source of law such as a similar case is used by judges to evaluate their
decision for the case being held. In the case of R v Armel Gnango, the decision was that Gnango was
given 10 years in prison, whereas bandana man was given life in prison. This relates to the past case
of R v Mohan, which is where Mohan was charged for attempted murder of a police officer but he
was found not guilty as it wasn’t intended to attempt to murder the police officer as Mohan
responded to the police officer’s signal to stop but had no intention to drive towards the police
officer, suggesting that the R v Armel Gnango and R v Mohan cases are similar because neither
Gnango or Mohan committed a murder in their separate cases.
Persuasive Authority is where past cases that are similar to the current trial in court are talked about
in which are used to persuade the judge or the jury to think about the decisions that should be made
in court. Relating to the R v R rape case, the defendant was found not guilty because his wife who
were separated didn’t say no to his attempt to commit a sexual offence on her.
Ratio Decidendi is a Latin phrase for ‘the reason’ so it is used in court to clarify why that decision has
been made in court by the judge. In terms of the case of R v Armel Gnango, the reason for Gnango
being sentenced for 10 years in prison was because despite that he didn’t murder Magda Pnewskia,
he was still involved in the shooting that took place but the main reason for Gnango receiving 10
years in prison was since he had a weapon as self-defence, therefore he wasn’t guilty of murder as
he didn’t fire the bullet to hit Magda Pnewskia.
Obiter Statements are the opinions and decision from the judges in court that decide what sentence
the defendant would receive if they were to be found guilty. According to the R v Armel Gnango
case, Gnango was received a 10-year sentence in prison due to being involved in the shooting of
Magda Pnewskia, but the obiter statement would be considered because Gnango believed that he
wasn’t completely involved in the murder of Magda Pnewskia.
Precedents are distinguished by looking at facts of the case that is being held in court in different
ways. Precedents look at two similar cases to the trial in court in which the case with the most
similar facts to the current case in court is the one similar case that the precedents follow. Although,
the case must be appropriate to be used in court because if the case is weak, then people can appeal
against the decision made in court. Referring to the R v Armel Gnango case, Gnango was given 10
years in prison for being involved in the murder of Magda Pnewskia in which Bandana Man was
responsible for firing the bullet and mistakenly hitting the victim. However, Gnango appealed against
the decision made in court because his belief was that his involvement in the murder of Magda
Pnewskia was a minor involvement, whereas Bandana Man was sentenced to life in prison. There is
a possibility however that the decision could’ve been reversed and the reason for this is because a
10-year sentence would’ve been given to someone who was fully involved in a murder that was
committed, therefore Gnango’s statement was seen as a harsh statement to give in court as he
