[nickr]

In layman terms judges are egotistical so they do not like to overturn other judge’s decisions to protect their decisions from being overturned.

Not quite. judges have to follow decisions set in higher courts, full stop. So if the court of appeal defines some legal term, then lower courts must follow.

decisions by courts of the same rank are persuasive only, like "2 other crown court judges have said X, but this is a developing area and I have had different legal arguments presented, so I disagree and say Y" is quite common. So while the 2 other judges have set a "precedent" - it is only persuasive on another judge of the same rank. Eventually a higher court will set them straight and create a precedent that the lower courts must follow.

In this case the person pled guilty so no decision made by a judge so no president set.

No precedent on the ingredients of the crime, but likely a precedent (in the second sense above) on sentencing level.