Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Precedent
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===English legal system=== The doctrine of binding precedent or ''stare decisis'' is basic to the English legal system. Special features of the English legal system include the following: ====The Supreme Court's ability to override its own precedent==== The British [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]], as the court of last appeal outside Scotland before it was replaced by the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|UK Supreme Court]], was not strictly bound to always follow its own decisions until the case ''[[London Street Tramways v London County Council]]'' [1898] AC 375. After this case, once the Lords had given a ruling on a point of law, the matter was closed unless and until Parliament made a change by statute. This is the most strict form of the doctrine of ''stare decisis'' (one not applied, previously, in [[Common law#Disambiguate civil law|common law]] jurisdictions, where there was somewhat greater flexibility for a court of last resort to review its own precedent). This situation changed, however, after the House of Lords issued the [[Practice Statement]] of 1966. The House of Lords decided to allow itself to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. In ''[[R v G]]'' [2003] UKHL 50, the House of Lords overruled its 1981 decision in ''[[R v Caldwell]]'', which had allowed the Lords to establish [[mens rea]] ("guilty mind") by measuring a defendant's conduct against that of a "reasonable person", regardless of the defendant's actual state of mind.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-g-recklessness.php|title=R v G (2003) β recklessness in criminal law|website=www.lawteacher.net|language=en|access-date=7 June 2019}}</ref> However, the Practice Statement was seldom applied by the House of Lords, usually only as a last resort. Up to 2005,{{update inline|date=March 2020}} the House of Lords rejected its past decisions no more than 20 times.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cOUpZcAfZWoC&q=However,+the+Practice+Statement+has+been+seldom+applied+by+the+House+of+Lords,+usually+only+as+a+last+resort.+As+of+2005,+the+House+of+Lords+has+rejected+its+past+decisions+no+more+than+20+times&pg=PA112|title=Textbook on Legal Methods, Legal Systems and Research|last=Saha|first=Tushar Kanti|date=2010|publisher=Universal Law Publishing|isbn=9788175348936|language=en}}</ref> They were reluctant to use it because they feared to introduce uncertainty into the law. In particular, the Practice Statement stated that the Lords would be especially reluctant to overrule themselves in criminal cases because of the importance of certainty of that law. The first case involving criminal law to be overruled with the Practice Statement was ''[[Anderton v Ryan]]'' (1985), which was overruled by ''[[R v Shivpuri]]'' (1986), two decades after the Practice Statement. Remarkably, the precedent overruled had been made only a year before, but it had been criticised by several academic lawyers. As a result, [[Lord Bridge]] stated he was "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."<ref>Martin, Jacqueline (2005). ''The English Legal System'' (4th ed.), p. 25. London: Hodder Arnold. {{ISBN|0-340-89991-3}}.</ref> Still, the House of Lords has remained reluctant to overrule itself in some cases; in ''R v Kansal'' (2002), the majority of House members adopted the opinion that ''R v Lambert'' had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from their earlier decision. ====Distinguishing precedent on legal (rather than fact) grounds==== A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam". For example, if a statutory provision or precedent had not been brought to the previous court's attention before its decision, the precedent would not be binding.{{cn|date=May 2022}}
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Precedent
(section)
Add topic