Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Judicial Precedent - 1966 Practice Statement (Advantages of the Practice…
Judicial Precedent - 1966 Practice Statement
House of Lords
until the statement was issued, the HL was bound by its own previous decisions
meant the law could not change
stated that HL would in future be free to depart from (not follow) its own previous decision "where it appeards right to do so"
gives some disrection
PS emphasised that the power should be used sparingly for the sake of certainty and consistency in the law
Use of the Practice Statement
this power was used sparingly by the HL
HL used the PS in :red_flag: BRB v Herrinton to depart from its own previous decision in :red_flag: Addie v Dumbreck
:red_flag: Pepper v Hart
:red_flag: R v G and another
Supreme Court
this power now applies to the SC
the SC is reluctant to use the statement as it is aware of the need for certainty in the law
even if the PS might apply, the SC still considers whether legislation - to change the law - would be a better solution
:red_flag: Nicklinson
SC did use the PS in 2016 to overrule 2 previous HL decisions
Advantages of the Practice Statement
gives the law flexibility to deal with new situations
gives the law flexibility flexibility to ensure justice in each case
means the law can develop in live with the changes in society
means that judicial decisions reflect the morals and expectations of society
:black_flag: Marital Rape Act
unsatisfactory case law can be changed without the need for a new Act of Parliament