A Level Law Practice Exam

Persuasive precedent refers to legal principles or conclusions derived from cases that do not carry binding authority but can still influence a court's decision-making. Among the options, judicial reviews do not fit this category. They involve the process by which courts examine the actions of public authorities to ensure they act within the law. Judicial reviews typically involve the assessment of legality rather than the establishment of legal precedents that might be followed in future cases.

In contrast, dissenting judgments are opinions expressed by judges who do not agree with the majority decision, which can serve as persuasive precedent in later cases. Similarly, obiter dicta are remarks or observations made by judges that are not essential to the decision and thus theoretically can be persuasive in future cases. Decisions from lower courts can also serve as persuasive precedents for higher courts, especially if the lower court decision is well-reasoned.

Understanding these distinctions helps clarify why judicial reviews do not represent a type of persuasive precedent, as they focus on evaluating the legality of actions rather than creating a precedent for future case law.