Showing that there is a precedent to support a decision is often a good way of ensuring that the decision is taken. But pointing to a precedent will not always be sufficient to make one's actions authoritative. Children sometimes argue rigidly and remorselessly from the premise of like treatment, yet their citations of precedent, rather than bolstering their cases, will often show that they have grasped neither the bigger picture, nor the range of experiences and concepts on which a more mature decision-maker would rely. Not that the danger of over-dependence on precedent is confined to children. Constant recourse to precedent might indicate that a decision-maker has few or no other solutions at his disposal; indeed, the domain of precedent can sometimes be that proverbial box outside which the unimaginative fail to think. Confidence in the decision-maker who constantly follows previous decisions could diminish over time, furthermore, because unswerving adherence to precedent might betray a fondness for the easy option or an unwillingness to think seriously about what is at stake. So it is that great jurists and judges have appreciated that adjudication calls for valour as well as caution, and that occasionally the decision which is likely to command our attention and respect in the future is the one which rejects what we did in the past.

The formation of a doctrine of precedent

There exists a considerable amount of rigorous historical research charting the development of the doctrine of precedent between medieval and modern times.