This conceptual legal article proposes “managed judicial discretion” to reconcile judicial flexibility with legal certainty through guidelines, consistent precedent, transparent reasoning and oversight. The framework organises an important debate but is not empirical evidence that these measures reduce inconsistency or improve fairness in real courts.
Key findings
- The framework emphasises four elements: clear guidance, consistent use of precedent, transparent reasons and oversight that does not dictate substantive judgment. Legal certainty is treated as an institutional achievement rather than a product of rigid rules alone.
Why this matters globally
The framework offers a checklist for court reform and judgment-data design across legal systems, especially where inconsistent outcomes and judicial independence are both concerns.
Thai researcher contribution
Syarif bin Muhammadromli Samae of Yala Rajabhat University connects a Thai institutional perspective with an international legal debate. The paper does not specifically evaluate Thai courts.
Limitations to consider
There are no judgment datasets, before–after comparisons or perspectives from judges, lawyers and court users. Consistency and oversight vary across legal systems, and excessive controls could undermine independence.