Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please explain to me what the practice statement is.

    I know that it allows the supreme court to depart from their previous decisions in a case.

    And i need to know some cases. I haven't got an. I've looked in my notes and text book and i can't find anything.

    Please help
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ********)
    Can someone please explain to me what the practice statement is.

    I know that it allows the supreme court to depart from their previous decisions in a case.

    And i need to know some cases. I haven't got an. I've looked in my notes and text book and i can't find anything.

    Please help
    The Practice Statement of 1966 allowed the then-highest court (The House of Lords) to depart from its own previous decisions and thus gave it the ability to depart from precedent set by itself.

    Even so, judges were encouraged to continue the practice of following precedent, it should only be used in certain essential cases. It's because of encouragement to follow precedent that the House of Lords didn't use it at all until 1968 in Conway v Rimmer. The first major usage however, is considered to be the case of British Railways v Herrington in 1972.

    It was first used in a criminal case in R v Shivpuri [1986].
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you! I'm so glad someone else struggles with this not just me!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarahcatherine)
    Thank you! I'm so glad someone else struggles with this not just me!
    LOL !!! Don't worry we're on the same boat

    Good luck in your exam if u have one next month
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The House of Lords


    The House of lords is bound by the decisions of the European Court of Justice [ECJ], but as the highest appeal court in England, its decisions bind all the other English courts. Originally, except where a decision was made per incuriam (in error), the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions. Thiw as established in London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898), in order to ensure certainty in the law. However, in the 1966 the Lord Chancellor issued a practice statement to help create flexibility.

    This was seen as an important event, but in the years sicne that decision the House of Lords has used the power sparingly. The Lords has overruled its own previous decisions in the following cases:

    British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) Overruled Addie v Dumbreck (1929) On the duty of care owed to a child trespasser

    Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) Overruled Anns V Merton London Borough Council (1977) on the duty of care owed by local authorities.

    Pepper v Hart (1993) Overruled the House of Lords ruling in Davis v Johnson (1979) that banned the use of Hansard in statutory interpretation

    R v Shivpuri (1986) Overruled Anderton v Ryan (1985) on attempting the impossible in theft.

    R V Howe (1987) Overruled R v Lynch (1975) and stated that duress was no defence to a murder charge.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It is meant to make case law more flexible and so that points of law can be adjusted in line with a changing society. Loads of people here have used better cases then I have got but I go by using R v R (1991) as an example before breaking into the relevancy of the above point. I also talk about the reluctance of the HoL to apply it in the cases of Caldwell 81 and Reid 92. I also talk about Lord Dennings suggestion that is should be applied in the CoA in the case of Davis v Johnson (1979) to which Lord Simon said that it would have to be done by an Act of Law rather then the method that the HoL announced it.

    Btw I am using a book from 2008, as someone who is more interested in EU and international politics, can someone explain to me how much has changed across the syllabus?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    so the practise statement just allows judges to over rule their own previous decisions?:confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calliefitz96)
    so the practise statement just allows judges to over rule their own previous decisions?:confused:
    The practice statement was passed in 1966 by Lord Gardiner and this allowed judges in the Supreme Court to depart from their own decisions. He stated that this should be used 'sparingly' and it has infact only been used around 30 times, one of these being in the case of BRB V Herrington where the case of Addie V Dumbreck was overruled and the decision of BRB was that owners of land owe a duty of care to child trespassers.

    So yeah basically, it is the act that allows the supreme courts (or the House of Lords as it was known) to depart from its own decisions.

    But remember that when it comes to analysing the practice statement- it can only overrule previous decisions when cases of similar fact are appealed up to the Supreme Court so hundreds of injustices could be done before the precedent is changed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    RvR 1992, London Tramways v London Borough Council, Donoghue v Stevenson, Schorsch Meier v Hennin, Young v Bristol Aeroplane, Milliangos v George Frank Textiles to name a few. Good luck
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know this is quite an old thread now but I have a question on this it is:-

    "Do you agree with the view expressed in Lord
    Gardiner’s Practice Statement of 1966 that the English doctrine of binding
    precedent “is an indispensable foundation on which to decide what is the law”?

    Any ideas what I can say/ discuss please? Any help is greatly appreciated

    TIA
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KITANA91)
    The House of Lords



    The House of lords is bound by the decisions of the European Court of Justice [ECJ], but as the highest appeal court in England, its decisions bind all the other English courts. Originally, except where a decision was made per incuriam (in error), the House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions. Thiw as established in London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898), in order to ensure certainty in the law. However, in the 1966 the Lord Chancellor issued a practice statement to help create flexibility.

    This was seen as an important event, but in the years sicne that decision the House of Lords has used the power sparingly. The Lords has overruled its own previous decisions in the following cases:

    British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) Overruled Addie v Dumbreck (1929) On the duty of care owed to a child trespasser

    Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) Overruled Anns V Merton London Borough Council (1977) on the duty of care owed by local authorities.

    Pepper v Hart (1993) Overruled the House of Lords ruling in Davis v Johnson (1979) that banned the use of Hansard in statutory interpretation

    R v Shivpuri (1986) Overruled Anderton v Ryan (1985) on attempting the impossible in theft.

    R V Howe (1987) Overruled R v Lynch (1975) and stated that duress was no defence to a murder charge.
    6 years later and you're still a lifesaver
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Do judges make Law
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Do judges make Law
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.