1966 Practice Statment - Supreme Court

Hello,

I am aware that the Practice Statment of 1966 allowed the House of Lords to overrule previous decisions made within the court, however, since the creation of the Supreme Court, is the Supreme Court bound by the Practice Statment or 'Practice Rules'?

My lecturer seems convinced that the Supreme Court in no longer bound by the 1966 Practice Statment, but by the Practice Rules. I have searched the internet and multiple revision sources, they seem to suggest that there is no such thing as the 'Practice Rules'. However, my lecutrer suggests they are mistaken.

Please can you clarify this?
Thanks

(The Supreme Court has not re-issued the House of Lords’ Practice Statement of 26 July 1966 (Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1996] 1 WLR 1234) which stated that the House of Lords would treat former decisions of the House as normally binding but that it would depart from a previous decision when it appeared right to do so. The Practice Statement is “part of the established jurisprudence relating to the conduct of appeals” and “has as much effect in [the Supreme] Court as it did before the Appellate Committee in the House of Lords”: Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [2010] UKSC 28 at paragraphs 24, 25.)

I haven't come across this problem because I studied this aspect pre-UKSC, but see here at the bottom of page 1.



This would appear to suggest that the Practice Direction 1966 continues to apply to the UKSC.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: I don't think "practice rules" (or "Practice Rules") is a "thing". There's the Civil/Criminal Procedure Rules, various guides to practice (e.g. Blackstone's Criminal Practice), and practice directions (not the PS 1966 - these are rules, but they're almost like compulsory guidelines on how to conduct court proceedings). Beyond that, I've never heard of "the Practice Rules".

Thank you very much this has helped clarify the issue. I shall raise this up with my lecturer again.

Thanks for coming back to quote me.

Out of curiosity what level are you at? If this is sixth form there's not much point in raising it because the tutor probably won't know (and I think it's unlikely to come up in the exam). If it's uni by all means ask for a rebuttal, especially if you're sufficiently interested to read the judgment referenced, but don't expect the tutor to change their mind.

In any event, it's definitely worth spending another 10 minutes on this to satisfy yourself that you're absolutely right and the lecturer is wrong. I've had to do that with a few points recently and it has the advantage that now I definitely won't forget them in the exam!

EDIT: I don't think "practice rules" (or "Practice Rules") is a "thing". There's the Civil/Criminal Procedure Rules, various guides to practice (e.g. Blackstone's Criminal Practice), and practice directions (not the PS 1966 - these are rules, but they're almost like compulsory guidelines on how to conduct court proceedings). Beyond that, I've never heard of "the Practice Rules".

I will just make the point that this practice rules most definitely do exist but they do not refer to the issue.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_rules_2009.pdf

Practice Direction 3 does however.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/practice-direction-03.pdf

Thanks. I haven't come across these rules on the LPC; are they "UKSC-specific" CPR?