One very important element of the law of United Kingdom is the precedent. "The precedent Â is aÂ legal caseÂ establishing a principle or rule that aÂ courtÂ or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues orÂ facts."  These decisions can be used as a map to help the judges navigate through the English legal system. Despite the fact that the precedent can be very useful sometimes in the English law in some special cases it will only make the things more difficult and it will lead to false results.
Generally it is argued that precedent introduces unnecessary rigidity into the law, thereby preventing legal doctrine from developing as society develops. The first thing that we should consider is why this thing is happening. To examine that thing we should first start from the meaning of the word <<precedent>>. The word precedent refers to an action that already has happened and that's the greatest disadvantage of the precedent. Judges that use precedent to help them make their decision are basing heavily the result of the trial on a decision that was made a lot of years ago and that's the most important problem. Especially when we talk about cases that happened hundred years ago it's unorthodox to be used as guidance in modern cases. The reason is that trough the years the way that peoples act and think are changed and something that was radical in 1900 can be turned into something normal in 2011. Also we can see that modern society develops and with her the law was developed too. So modern law can't be compatible with old decisions that can mislead to wrong solution. Also one more great problem with the precedent is that we can't know what the judge that took the final decision in an old trial was thinking, for what reasons and under what circumstances he took his decision.
In addition the application of precedent may sometimes cause injustice. The overruling of an earlier case may cause injustice to those who have ordered their affairs in reliance on it. Precedent may produce justice in the individual case but injustice in the generality of cases. It would be undesirable to treat a number of claimants unjustly simply because one binding case had laid down an unjust rule. The use of precedent also has as a result to limit the development of the law. The doctrine of stare decisis is a limiting factor in the development of the law made by judges. Practical law is founded on experience but the scope for further experience is restricted if the first case is binding.
Also one more great problem is that there are too many precedents and that fact can have as a result the loss of time and money and sometimes it can lead to confusion due to the large number of cases that should be considered. The citation of authority in court should be kept within reasonable bounds because it can be costly in terms of time and money. Also Lord Diplock has warned of the danger of so blinding the court with case law that it has difficulty in seeing the wood of legal principle for the trees of paraphrase. In order to avoide all those consequences the House of Lords has decided that it will not allow transcripts of unreported judgments of the Court of Appeal, civil division, to be cited before the House except with its leave.
Finally one more disadvantage of the precedent is that it makes the law inflexible. The case-law method is sometimes said to be flexible. A judge is not so free where there is a binding precedent. Unless it can be distinguished he must follow it, even though he dislikes it or considers it bad law. His discretion is thereby limited and the alleged flexibility of case law becomes rigidity. Judges are forced to apply binding precedents that blocks them from making a new decision about that case. That
One great example that the precedent can't be used in certain cases can be found at the case of R v R  1 AC 599. In this case a husband appealed against his conviction of the attempted rape of his wife. The defense of the husband supported that a husband cannot be guilty of rape upon his lawful wife because of the marriage contract. Upon marriage the wife consents to her husband's exercise of his marital rights. They based their defence on case law using : Hale, History of the Pleas of the Crown, 1st ed. (1736), vol. 1, ch. 58, p. 629; Archbold, Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases, 1st ed. (1822), p. 259; Rex v. Audley (Lord) (1631) 3 St.Tr. 401;Â Reg. v. Cogan  Q.B. 217Â andÂ Reg. v. Kowalski (1987) 86 Cr.App.R. 339 The wife's consent could only be withdrawn in certain circumstances, such as her death, or if the marriage was avoided by a private Act of Parliament, a separation order (seeÂ Rex v. Clarke  2 All E.R. 448), a decree nisi (seeÂ Reg. v. O'Brien (Edward)  3 All E.R. 663), an undertaking (seeÂ Reg. v. Steele (1976) 65 Cr.App.R. 22), a deed of separation (seeÂ Reg. v. Roberts  Crim.L.R. 188), or a family protection order (see Reg. v. S. (unreported), 15 January 1991, which did not followÂ Reg. v. Sharples  Crim.L.R. 198). As none of those factors existed, the appellant's immunity was not lost by what happened between his wife and himself. Accordingly he should not be tried for or convicted of rape. Although Appeal dismissed. Overturning the principle set out in Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), that a wife irrevocably consented to sexual intercourse with her husband on marriage, their Lordships confirmed that the assumption was no longer applicable in modern times when marriage was viewed as a partnership of equals. TheÂ Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 s.1(1)Â defined rape as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it". Their Lordships rejected submissions that "unlawful" meant outside the bond of marriage. It was unrealistic to describe extramarital sexual intercourse as unlawful, particularly as "unlawful" normally meant contrary to some law or enactment or without lawful justification or excuse. The word "unlawful" was superfluous in the context of s.1(1). The husband was guilty of attempting to have sexual intercourse with his wife against her will contrary to s.1(1) of the 1976 Act.
On the other hand despite the fact that precedent has some disadvantages it also has a lot of advantages because In its favour, the use of precedent is said to bring certainty to the law by enabling people to know how issues in the future will be resolved. At first with the use of precedent people are aware of the law and it's consequences and they can predict with exactitude their penalties if they make any unlawful actions and they can avoid them by knowing that it's illegal and that they will receive a penalty. Also the precedent is a "convenient timesaving device". If a problem has already answer and been solved it is natural to reach the same conclusion. The judges can use the precedent to deal with minor offences that came to the jury and that will save a lot of time so that they can deal with more cases in a smaller time period.
One of the most important advantages from the use of precedent is that it gives greater certainty in the law and helps the judges to avoid mistakes. The existence of a precedent may prevent a judge making a mistake that he might have made if he had been left on his own without any guidance. Generally the precedent is a very important tool for the judges. When they face a difficult case they can search for similar cases in the past and see what decisions were made. That can help them to make a decision and to be sure that their decision was lawful and fair.
In addition the use of precedent prevents injustice. The doctrine of precedent may serve the interests of justice. It would be unjust to reach a different decision in a following case. Everyone should be equal against the law. In order to make that happen we should all be judged as equals and receive the same penalties for the same crimes. The precedent helps with that because the decision is taken based on a previous decision for a similar or same crime. That helps the judges and works like a guidance to help them make right decisions. Also it ensures impartiality of judge. The interests of justice also demand impartiality from the judge. This may be assured by the existence of a binding precedent, which he must follow unless it is distinguishable. If he tries to distinguish an indistinguishable case his attempt will be obvious. Judges that are not loyal to their duty is easy to be corrupted and make decision that are in favor of one part. The use of precedent helps to limit the phenomenon of corruption of the judges and it ensures a fair legal system. Judges can't make decision and penalties out of their minds. They should follow the precedent if it is binding or if they have worries about taking a decision. Every radical attempt to support one side at the expense of an other would be obvious and would be stopped.