2. Can you name these cases? Till death do us part ZzzBrum. Thwack. Brum. Zzz. Oops. Worst plan ever to get out of a contract. Son… be a man… kill your mum How much damage can a paper do? Surely that’s a wheely easy question! But don’t you love me? You laugh and I’ll rock your world Baby vs Wall Canary wins over TV Veg out? Howe’d you think we’d let you leave our gang? But you beat each other brown and blue! That’s not on. You’re a tool for killing him. Marriages break up, but the paper stays the same. Axeually, I can use it. Andrew! I love you, there’s no butt about it!
3. The Supreme Court Can you remember the key rules? It is bound by its own previous decisions. The material facts of the case are sufficiently similar The European Court of Justice The interpretation of European Union Law The European Court of Human Rights Human Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 All the courts below it.
4. What’s the problem? Well, essentially, what if the Supreme Court need to change their minds? They may have got the law wrong, or social standards may have changed. Should we be stuck with law which doesn’t work or we know to be ‘wrong’? Is certainty more important than injustice?
5. Traditional Approach A bit of history! London Street Tramways v London County Council 1898 “Certainty is more important than any individual hardship which might result through precedent” 1898-1966 But: How unfair does it have to be? DPP v Smith 1961 Only option: Leave it to Parliament s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967
6. Certainty is a good thing but... Stare decisis still stands "Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules. "Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose therefore to modifytheir present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so. "In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law. "This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this House."' Depart’ means they will be using which method of avoiding precedent? Why does the law need to develop? ?! Why? It is discretionary Does it apply to other courts?
7. …in summary Generally, the House of Lords will consider itself however, they may their own previous decision, being even more cautious if it is a matter of . This power is . Bound criminal law overrule where it appears right to do so discretionary
8. So when did they use it? Conway v Rimmer 1968 An ex-police officer sued for wrongful prosecution and sought disclosure of some police files. The Home Secretary claimed public interest immunity for all such files. The HL used the statement to remove this presumption: a small evidentiary ruling. but Knuller v DPP 1973 “in the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we act.”
9. First Use of Statement in Civil LawChange in Social Conditions BRB v Herrington (1972) overruling Addie v Dumbreck (1920)
10. Other civil examples: Change in Economic status Miliangos v George Frank Ltd overruling Havana Railways 1968
11. Other civil examples: To Create Certainty Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990) overruling Anns v Merton BC (1977)
12. Other civil examples: To Help to Develop the Law Pepper v Hart 1993 overruling Davis v Johnson 1979
13. Other civil examples: To update the law A v Hoare 2008 overruling Stubbings v Webb 1993
14. What about the Criminal law? The court was even more cautious here... as there is an ‘especial’ need for certainty.
15. First Use of Statement in Criminal Law R v Shivpuri 1986 Overruling Anderton v Ryan 1985 Thinking: Does it matter that the decisions were less than a year apart? “I am undeterred by the consideration that the decision in Anderton v Ryan was so recent. The practice statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected the better. “ Simply put: yeah, we make mistakes. Let’s correct it!
20. To develop the law to reflect the changing social and economic status. But There are some areas they will not change, and leave to Parliament C v DPP (1995) This is all about the age of criminal responsibility. 10-14 presumption of ‘doliincapax’
21.
22. You must use a range of examples, and be confident describing them in detail.
