Judicial Precedent (SC) Flashcards
London Tramways v LCC
quote and judge
‘a decision of this House once given upon a point of law in conclusive upon this House afterwards’ (Earl of Halsbury LC)
Practice Statement
‘too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case’
may ‘unduly restrict the proper development of the law’
‘depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so’
1966
Austin v Southwark London Borough Council
SC stated that PS applied to them the same as the HL
Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services
Use PS sparingly to avoid uncertainty
Decisions on construction of statute not normally to be reconsidered.
Ross-Smith v Ross-Smith
Don’t upset legitimate expectations.
Knuller v DPP
‘merely wrong’ is not enough to change a decision. The judgment in Shaw v DPP was followed; Lord Reid said he believed the decision to be wrong but could not depart from it on these grounds only “we must be sure there is some very good reason before we so act”
Charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals for placing adverts to engage in homosexual activity in a magazine.
R v R
unjust or outdated principle of law.
Case of marital rape. Now women are not the ‘subservient chattel of the husband’ Lord Keith.
“in modern times any reasonable person must regard that conception as quite unacceptable”
Anderton v Ryan
overruled by R v Shivpuri.
Defendant believed herself to be in possession of a stolen video recorder despite no evidence to suggest it was stolen. Criminal Attempts Act 1981, defendant’s intent cannot make an innocent act guilty.
R v Shivpuri
Overturned Anderton v Ryan.
Defendant believed himself to be transporting drugs which turned out to be vegetable matter. Belief/ intent was enough to convict.
Duncan v Cammel, Laird & Co
Overturned by Conway v Rimmer
Confidentiality and public interest immunity came first therefore documents could not be viewed.
Conway v Rimmer
Overturned Duncan v Cammel, Laird & Co
Public interest immunity and confidentiality can be ignored if proper administration of justice is greater that the public interest for confidentiality.
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch
Overruled by R v Howe
There was a defence of duress for murder
R v Howe
Overruled DPP for NI v Lynch
Removed the defence of duress for murder
Liesbosch Dredger
Overruled by Lagden v O’Connor
The cost of hiring a new boat was not available as part of the damages, only the market value of the original
Lagden v O’Connor
Overruled Liesbosch Dredger
Defendant must take victim as they find them. Damages could be claimed for the cost of hiring a new car when the original was damaged.
Addie v Dumbreck
Overruled by British Railways Board v Herrington
Occupier of premises only liable to a trespassing child if child was harmed intentionally or recklessly.
British Railways Board v Herrington
Overruled Addie v Dumbreck
Change in social conditions - more reasonable approach = test of ‘common humanity’. Has the occupier taken reasonable care to protect the safety of the trespasser?
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd
Lord Cross “does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it…”
Reluctance to use the PS
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja
When departing from precedent it must be a safe and appropriate way of remedying the injustice and developing the law.
Overruled Zamir in which an immigration officer could, according to his belief, remove an alleged illegal immigrant from entering the country. This was held to limit the Court’s power to review the removal.
C v DPP
Reluctance to use the PS. Refusal to abolish the presumption of doli incapax
Lord Lowry’s guidelines
- Where there is a doubtful solution, judges should be cautious.
- Be cautious if it is a change which Parliament has had an opportunity to change itself.
- judges are better suited to legal problems than social policy
- Fundamental legal doctrines should not be easily set aside.
- unless finality and certainty can be achieved, judges should not change the law.
