binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent
The doctrine of precedent is important because that's where the courts use to govern current cases or to apply the laws if and when a precedent case applies to it.
The principles under the doctrine of binding precedent are that the courts must use past solutions. They apply when the law is not unreasonable or inconvenient.
Sort you head out jamica jamica
the doctrine of judicial restrain holds that judges should generally defer to precedent and to decisions made by legislature
Many countries are happy with judicial precedent. If it were not in place then judgements in previous cases would not be relevant in current cases. This could lead to situations where people were found not guilty in the past for exactly the same accusation for which they could be found guilty now. That can not be fair. If the public think that a particular judgement leading to a judicial precedent is not correct, they can pass a law in the legislature to correct the mistake.
The proper term for a ruling that becomes a model for future cases to follow is called "precedent." Judges will often look for those cases that have set a precedent when deciding how to rule on a present case.
well the problem mainly lies in the hierarchy of the courts
If a judge has ruled on the same or similar issue in the past, the current and future judges are supposed to abide by that decision unless there is an extreme or compelling reason not to follow the precedent.
Read Malaysian Legal System book, you lazy ass.
The requirement that a lower court must follow a previously set precedent is called stare decisis.
The separation of powers doctrine refers to the division of the government. These branches are the executive, legislative and judicial. The separation of powers doctrine supposed to be the cornerstone of fair government.