What do children cases actually decide, asks Simon Johnson
Pretty well the first thing that law students learn about reading reported cases is the importance of distinguishing between the ratio decidendi and any obiter dicta. They learn that the “ratio” is, “(t)he principle or principles of law on which the court reaches its decision” and that obiter dicta are, “(s)omething said by a judge while giving judgment that is not essential to the decision in the case” and that, “(i)t does not form part of the ratio decidendi of the case and therefore creates no binding precedent” (definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary of Law, 5th Edition).
Slightly more advanced students, and cynical practitioners, soon learn to recognise the value of Asquith LJ’s definition (writing extra-judicially in 1950): “The rule is quite simple: if you agree with the other bloke, you say it’s part of the ratio; if you don’t you say it’s obiter dictum with the implication that he’s a congenital idiot.”
The sharp distinction drawn between the statements of principle that
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
