Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
judicial precedent (Supreme Court) - Coggle Diagram
judicial precedent (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT(all courts below are bound by it)
Court of Appeal (all courts below are bound by it) (must follow Supreme Court)
High court (county court, magistrates court bound by it) ((must follow Supreme Court, Court of Appeal)
Crown court (possibly magistrates court bound by it) (must follow Supreme Court, Court of Appeal)
country courts and magistrates court do not create precedent and are bound by all higher courts
London Street Tramways v London County Council - HoL decided that certainty on the law by following a past decision was more important than preventing individual hardship
(HoL) it was completely bound by its own decisions of the past unless the decision had been made per incuriam, 'in error'
this felt to be not satisfactory, as the law could not alter to meet changing social conditions and opinions, nor could any possible 'wrong' decisions be changed by legislation
felt that the highest court of appeal should have greater flexibility in its decision making
criminal cases
supreme court (HoL)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
crown court
magistrate's court
civil cases
supreme court (HoL)
Court of Appeal (Civil Decision)
Divisional Courts
high court
county court
it allowed HoL to change the law when it believed that an earlier case was wrongly decided
has the flexibility to refuse to follow an earlier case when it 'appeared right to do so'
THE PRACTICE STATEMENT
Lord Chancellor issued a Practice Statement in 1966 announcing a change to the rule in London Street Tramways v London County Council which allowed them to depart from a previous decision when it appeared right to do so
British Railways Board v Herrington which involved the law on the duty of care owed to a child trespasser
in the earlier case Addie v Dumbrek had decided that an occupier of land would only owe a duty of care for injuries to deliberately or recklessly
Pepper v Hart is also an example of the use of the Practice Statement
(Criminal law)
where the Practise Statement is used to overrule a previous decision, that past case is then effectively ignored- the law is now that which is set out in the new case
R v R and G - HoL used Practice Statement to overrule the earlier decision of R v Caldwell - used Practice Statement where they thought it 'right to do so'
application of EU law in the UK has always been a matter of the UK courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, not for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
UK courts have always accepted their obligation to enforce EU law during the period of UK membership of the EU
existing rules of the CJEU on EU law could be overridden by a contrary ruling of the Supreme Court
Uk courts 'need not [but may where appropriate] have regard to' any ruling of the CJEU on a point of UK membership but delivered after that date