Judicial Precedent - 1966 Practice Statement

House of Lords

until the statement was issued, the HL was bound by its own previous decisions

stated that HL would in future be free to depart from (not follow) its own previous decision "where it appeards right to do so"

meant the law could not change

PS emphasised that the power should be used sparingly for the sake of certainty and consistency in the law

gives some disrection

Use of the Practice Statement

this power was used sparingly by the HL

HL used the PS in 🚩 BRB v Herrinton to depart from its own previous decision in 🚩 Addie v Dumbreck

🚩 Pepper v Hart

🚩 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

🚩 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

unsatisfactory case law can be changed without the need for a new Act of Parliament

🏴 Marital Rape Act