Scribd
Upload
395 views3 pages

Practice Statement

The document discusses the Practice Statement of 1966 issued by the House of Lords. The Practice Statement allowed courts to depart from precedents in certain circumstances. It summarizes the key points made in the document: 1) The Practice Statement of 1966 allows courts like the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to depart from their own previous decisions when there has been a material change in circumstances. 2) Historically, courts very rarely overturned their own precedents, but after 1966 they began doing so more regularly to develop the law in line with changing social conditions. 3) The Statement gave courts flexibility to correct past decisions and ensure justice, but it should be used sparingly and not to interpret statutes or undertake comprehensive legal reforms

Uploaded by

YofaKhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
395 views3 pages

Practice Statement

The document discusses the Practice Statement of 1966 issued by the House of Lords. The Practice Statement allowed courts to depart from precedents in certain circumstances. It summarizes the key points made in the document: 1) The Practice Statement of 1966 allows courts like the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to depart from their own previous decisions when there has been a material change in circumstances. 2) Historically, courts very rarely overturned their own precedents, but after 1966 they began doing so more regularly to develop the law in line with changing social conditions. 3) The Statement gave courts flexibility to correct past decisions and ensure justice, but it should be used sparingly and not to interpret statutes or undertake comprehensive legal reforms

Uploaded by

YofaKhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Question: Although the court should be very circumspect before using the

Practice Statement 1966, a material change in the legal and social landscape may
well give rise to a case for changing the law.’
Explain the key points of the Practice Statement 1966 and discuss the reasons the
court has used for changing the law using the Practice Statement.

The question above asks us to discuss the basic points of the Practice Statement of 1966 and to
elaborate on the reasons given by the court to change the laws using the Statement. The Practice
Statement issues in 1966 has played a significant role in causing change in the decisions taken by the
courts. Alongside the Practice Statement, horizontal precedent and the use of the Statement in the
criminal and civil division should also be discussed.
Generally, courts are required to follow its earlier decisions as judicial precedent plays a vital role in
English law development. There are two types of judicial precedents in the law: vertical and
horizontal.
Horizontal precedent is the approach taken by the courts to follow their own earlier decisions for
example, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal being bound by its own former decisions. In
the case of London Street Tramways Ltd v London County Council, the UKHL was bound to follow
its earlier decisions. (University of London Subject Guide: Legal Systems and Methods)
In 1966, the House of Lords issued a practice statement that announced that although courts are
bound by horizontal precedents, they are, considering the circumstances, allowed to depart from
those decisions. When the case of Austin v Southward London Borough Council reached the
Supreme Court, Lord Hope, in his judgement, said that the Supreme Court will also accept this in the
same way of the Practice Statement. Historically, it is very rare that the UKHL and the UKSC
overrule their earlier decisions. This is what the report of Professor Alan Paterson has focused on.
After the issuance of the Practice Statement, the UKHL was invited in the case of Knuller v DPP
[1973] to overrule their earlier decision of Shaw v DPP. The UKHL, however, refused to do so. 20
years after the publication of the Statement, the first decision of the UKHL to be overturned was that
of R v Shivpuri. In this case, the defendant did not have the defence for dealing with a controlled
drug named heroin and it was held that the defendant was guilty under S.1(1) and (2) of the Criminal
Attempts Act 1981. Additionally, Lord Bridges also stated that “if a serious error embodied in a
decision of the House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected, the better”. Another example
of an overturned decision is the case of R v Howe where the UKHL overruled their former decision
in case DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch regarding duress as a defence for murder.
The first time the Practice Statement was used in the Civil Division case of British Railways Board v
Herrington. In Herrington, the UKHL overturned their former decision of Addie v Dumbreck and
held that if there is any potential chance for injury, the occupier ought to have taken the
responsibility for prevention of trespassing. Another case of overturned decision is that of Anns v
Marton London Borough Council where Lord Mackay expressed that the previous decision only
considered the primary issues without considering the details of the law. It was also stated by Lord
Keith that, “I think it must now be recognised that [Anns] did not proceed on any basis of principle
of law, but constituted a remarkable example of judicial legislation”. (Holland and Webb)
Additionally, complications arose when calculating the claimed damage of a widow after the death of
her husband in Knauer v Ministry of Justice under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The UKHL had
considered whether to depart from their decisions in the two previous cases of Cookson v Knowles
and Graham v Dodds. The UKHL chose to depart citing that the outcome of the cases were unfair
and that the damage will have to be calculated not from the date of death but the date of trial.
(Westlaw)
After the Practice Statement was announced, a press release was also issued which further clarified
the use of the Statement. The UKHL said that they would depart from their previous decisions
sparingly, would use the Statement in order to implement social changes, depart from their decisions
in order to step in with other jurisdictions and in criminal cases, the court would not depart from their
decisions in order to maintain certainty. (University of London Subject Guide: Legal Systems and
Methods)
Professor Alan Peterson had also laid out seven criteria for exercising the freedom provided by the
Statement from a range of cases by Lord Reid. He mentioned that “use sparingly” means that this
freedom should be used sparingly. Secondly, the Statement might be used in cases where people may
have a legitimate expectation to do so. The Statement should not be used in the interpretation of
statutes or other documents, excluding rare and exceptional circumstances. The Statement should not
be used in case of a comprehensive reform of the law since only parliament has this power. In cases
of uncertainty, the Statement may be used and that it can also be used in cases of modern public
policy or social condition.
In conclusion, the Practice Statement has presented an opportunity to develop the law in considering
the society and there exist flexibility to make corrections in cases where justice was not done.

You might also like