Legal System | Judicial Precedent
Decisions: Binding
Revision Note | Degree
Download
bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Introduction
- judicial precedent requires a settled court hierarchy to allow judges to know which precedents they are bound to follow
- current English court structureestablished by Judicature Acts 1873 - 75
- House of Lords made final appellate court under Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876
- Supreme Court took over role in 2009, under Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- all courts bound by superior courts
- some courts bound by previous decisions of their own court
Challenges
- attempts to depart from decisions of the House of Lords
- notably by Lord Denning, in Court of Appeal
Conway v Rimmer [1967]
- Lord Denning:
.. My brethren today feel that we are still bound by the observations of the House of Lords in Duncan v Cammell, Laird & Co. Ltd.. I do not agree. The recent statement of Lord Gardiner LC has transformed the doctrine of precedent. This is the very case in which to throw off the fetters...
- House of Lords overruled Duncan
- but stated firmly that it had been binding on the Court of Appeal
- Lord Denning:
- attempts to depart have been criticised
Cassell v Broome [1971]
- Lord Hailsham disapproved:
.. it is not open to the Court of Appeal to give gratuitous advice to judges of first instance to ignore decisions of the House of Lords in this way and, if it were open to the Court of Appeal to do so, it would be highly undesirable... The fact is, and I hope it will never be necessary to say so again, that, in the hierarchical system of courts which exists in this country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the Court of Appeal, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers...
- Lord Hailsham disapproved:
Court of Justice of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is not bound by doctrine of precedent
- based on Civil (Roman) Law system, which is operated in most EU
- no formal adherence to precedent is an attempt to be consistent
- court takes count of prior cases and only depart for compelling reasons
- decision ofCJEU is binding on all courts throughout EU member States
European Court of Human Rights
- European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not follow a doctrine of binding precedent
Cossey v UK (1990)
- ECtHR held Article 12 of European Convention on Human Rights did not grant postoperative transsexuals the right to marry a person of the now opposite sex
- stating the Court
.. is not bound by its previous judgments... [however] ..usually follows and applies its own precedents, such a course being in the interests of legal certainty and the orderly development of the Convention case-law... Nevertheless, this would not prevent the Court from departing from an earlier decision if it was persuaded that there were cogent reasons for doing so. Such a departure might, for example, be warranted in order to ensure that the interpretation of the Convention reflects societal changes and remains in line with present-day conditions...
- court has departed from previous decisions
Goodwin v UK (2002)
- ECtHR departed from its ruling in Cossey
- grounds that there had been
.. major social changes in the institution of marriage since the adoption of the Convention as well as dramatic changes brought about by developments in medicine and science in the field of transsexuality...
Supreme Court
- Supreme Court is highest court in United Kingdom, for both civil and criminal appeals
- replaces the House of Lords, under Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- also cases previously considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK overseas territories)
- House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions
- rationale was that the decisions highest court in the land should be final, relied upon and create legal certainty
London Tramways Co. Ltd v London County Council [1898]
- reaffirmed tradition that House of Lords was bound by its own previous decisions
- only exception was if a decision had been made per incuriam
- referred to as the London Tramways rule
- House of Lords remained strictly bound by its own previous decisions until 1966
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966]
- abolished rule House of Lords was bound by its previous decisions
- Lord Gardiner:
.. 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 on 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 unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose, therefore, to modify their 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 upon which contracts, settlements of property, and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty in the criminal law. This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this House...
Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2011]
- Supreme Court confirmed Practice Statement has the same effect as in House of Lords
- under Constitutional Reform Act 2005, established jurisprudence of the House of Lords was transferred to the Supreme Court
Cases departing from previous decisions
- Practice Statement highlights the need for certainty and ecognises issues arising from departing from previous decisions
- cases where the House of Lords concluded a law should be changed it considered whether legislation would be a more suitable remedy than a departure from previous precedent
- ability to depart has been used infrequently by the House of Lords
Miliangos v George Frank Textiles [1976]
- Lord Cross stated that the Practice Statement
.. does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it...
- Lord Cross stated that the Practice Statement
- House of Lords used power in cases where a previous decision causes injustice, uncertainty or curtails the development of the law
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984]
- overruled its previous decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zamir [1980]
- Zamir it was held that an alleged illegal immigrant could be detained and removed if the immigration officer was satisfied that entry was illegal
- departing because considered the Zamir decision limited the power of the courts to review the removal and so caused an injustice and impeded the development of the law
British Railways Board v Herrington [1972]
- overruled its previous decision in Addy and Sons v Dumbreck (1929)
- Addy it was held that an occupier of premises was only liable to a trespassing child if that child was injured by the occupier intentionally or recklessly
- departing, House of Lords cited social policy reasons, that attitudes had changed since th earlier decision and increased the rights of trespassers to sue for injury
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991]
- overruled its previous decision in Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)
- Anns it was held that local authority was under a legal duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the foundations of a building complied with building regulations
- decision subject to widespread judicial and academic criticism anomalous in development of tort of negligence
- departing, the House of Lords restricted the ability to sue for pure economic loss and the decision can be seen as a matter of public policy
Conway v Rimmer [1968]
- overruled its previous decision Duncan v Cammell Laird and Co. Ltd [1942]
- Duncan the claimant was denied the right to obtain disclosure of documents relating to submarine design because a Minister's affidavit was sufficient to claim privilege and deny disclosure
- it was during wartime
- departing, the House of Lords held a trainee police officer could order disclosure of reports written about him and a Minister's affidavit was not the determining factor
Hall v Simons (200)
- overruled its previous decision in Rondel v Worsley [1967]
- Rondel it was found that barristers were immune from claims of negligence in court representation
- departing, House of Lords held that barristers should not be immune from negligence claims, on policy grounds
R v Howe [1987]
- overruled its previous decision in DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch (1975)
- Lynch it was found that the defence of duress was available to a someone who had aided and abetted in a murder
- departing, the House of Lords held the duress defence was not available for someone who had aided or abetted in murder
- referred to rising violent crime as a social policy reason for the new decision
- also had to rely on availability of parole and the royal prerogative of mercy to mitigate any problems caused by the reversal of its decision
Court of Appeal: Civil Division
- Criminal and Civil Division are considered to be not bound by one another
- because predecessors (the Court of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal) were not
- no ruling stating this
- general rule Civil Division decisions are binding on all the courts below it in civil cases
- division is usually bound by itself
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944]
- Court of Appeal found that it is bound by its own previous decisions subject to three exceptions:
- if it conflicts with other Court of Appeal decisions
- if it has been implicitly overruled by the House of Lords
- or it was made per incuriam
- exceptions were seen as necessary for several reasons
- conflicting previous Court of Appeal decisions can only arise if the earlier case was not followed by the second case
- should not arise but can do because court in the second case may not have been aware of the first case, one of the cases may have been decided per incuriam, the first decision was not cited to the court or it was cited but misunderstood by the second court
- Court of Appeal can follow the earlier case unless it can be distinguished, if it can be distinguished, then neither the second nor the third court is bound to follow it
- exception allows Court of Appeal to follow the second case despite the fact the decision should not exist (as it should have followed the first case)
- if previous decision conflicts with a higher court decision then the higher court must prevail
- exception applies when a decision has been implicitly rather than expressly overruled
- could happen where a case was not heard by the Court of Appeal and went straight to the House of Lords (leapfrog procedure)
- if another Court of Appeal case has been expressly overruled without being cited to the House of Lords (could happen if the House of Lords case was on very different facts or issues)
- per incuriam (
through carelessness
) - must be construed narrowly and it not simply enough for the previous decision to be wrong
- if it is per incuriam because ofignorance of a previous case then simply rule of precedent provides opportunity to reverse the decision
- if it is per incuriam because of ignorance of a statutory or procedural provision the exception is required to allow the Court not to be bound
Morelle v Wakeling [1955]
- Evershed MR defined the per incuriam exception as applying to
.. decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned...
Duke v Reliance Systems Ltd [1988]
- Lord Donaldson MR: decision is per incuriam only if the court must have reached a different conclusion, might is not sufficient
Williams v Fawcett [1986]
- C was imprisoned for breach of a non-molestation court order
- the paperwork failed to specify the breaches or to grant an adjournment
- held that a person could not be committed to prison for breach of a non-molestation order unless the notice had been signed by the 'proper officer' of the court
- such a requirement was not part of the statute or the procedural rules
- previous decisions were per incuriam, an error which had been followed in a number of cases
Rickards v Rickards [1990]
- Lord Donaldson MR:
.. The importance of the rule of stare decisis in relation to the Court of Appeal's own decisions can hardly be overstated. We now sometimes sit in eight divisions and, in the absence of such a rule, the law would quickly become wholly uncertain. However the rule is not without exceptions, albeit very limited. These exceptions were considered in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1944], Morrell v Wakeling [1955] and, more recently, in Williams v. Fawcett [1986].
These decisions show that this court is justified in refusing to follow one of its own previous decisions not only where that decision is given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or some authority binding upon it, but also, in rare and exceptional cases, if it is satisfied that the decision involved a manifest slip or error...
- Evershed MR defined the per incuriam exception as applying to
- been argued that the need for balance could provide an opportunity for a further exception
Davis v. Johnson [1979]
- Lord Diplock:
.. In an appellate court of last resort a balance must be struck between the need on the one hand for the legal certainty resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and, on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law. In the case of an intermediate appellate court, however, the second desideratum can be taken care of by appeal to a superior appellate court, if reasonable means of access to it are available...
- Lord Diplock:
Exceptions
Conflict
Implicitly Overruled
Per Incuriam
Balance
Court of Appeal: Criminal Division
- general rule Criminal Division decisions are binding on all the courts below it in criminal cases
- division is usually bound by itself
- all the exceptions which apply to the Civil Division apply to the Criminal Division
- Criminal Division has a further, wider discretion where the liberty of the individual in question
R v Gould [1968]
- Diplock LJ:
.. if upon due consideration we were to be of the opinion that the law had been either misapplied or misunderstood in an earlier decision... we should be entitled to depart from the view as to the law expressed in the earlier decision notwithstanding that the case could not be brought within any of the exceptions laid down in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd...
- Diplock LJ:
- if case is not within the exception rules set out in Young v Bristol Aeroplane, a full court (five members) may be convened to consider the matter
Divisional Courts
- most cases go to Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, which hears applications for judicial review and some appeals from inferior courts
- decisions are binding on the High Court but High Court decisions are not binding on it
- bound by its own decisions subject to the same exceptions as the relevant, civil or criminal, division of the Court of Appeal
- exception for judicial review
R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal [1985]
- in application for judicial review may depart from an earlier decision if it considers that it was wrong
- rationale is that judicial review cases are analogous to that of a judge at first instance
High Court
- High Court considers the more serious civil matters
- decisions of individual High Court judges are binding on the County Courts but not on other High Court judges
- uphold certainty High Court judges tend to try not to depart from previous decisions of the High Court
- however in a number of cases it has been suggested that where a first case has been fully considered (but not followed) in a second case, later judges should normally prefer the second case
- as the doctrine does not apply this approach does to some extent provide certainty
Crown Court
- a Crown Court is not bound by its own previous decisions
- in the interests of certainty in criminal matters, prior cases persuasive
- juries sit in many of the cases and therefore it is only the judge's decision on points of law which are relevant and are rarely reported
Inferior Courts
- County Courts and Magistrates' Courts are inferior courts
- do not bind any other courts and are not bound by their own decisions
- hundreds of courts of the first instance, most cases are not reported and no central record is kept
- so would be impossible for each court to be bound by one another, however, there is some attempt for courts to be consistent with themselves
Human Rights Act 1998
- has major impact on the doctrine of precedent
- judges are bound by case law which applies the Act rather than previous interpretations of existing legislation
Human Rights Act 1998
- Section 2(1):
A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any-.
(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, .
(b) opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention, .
(c) decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or .
(d) decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention, .
whenever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen
- Section 2(1):
- such judgments are considered highly persuasive but not formally binding