Judicial Precedent (SC)

Question 1

London Tramways v LCC

quote and judge

Answer 1

‘a decision of this House once given upon a point of law in conclusive upon this House afterwards’ (Earl of Halsbury LC)

Question 2

Practice Statement

Answer 2

‘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

Question 3

Austin v Southwark London Borough Council

Answer 3

SC stated that PS applied to them the same as the HL

Question 4

Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services

Answer 4

Use PS sparingly to avoid uncertainty

Decisions on construction of statute not normally to be reconsidered.

Question 5

Ross-Smith v Ross-Smith

Answer 5

Don’t upset legitimate expectations.

Question 6

Knuller v DPP

Answer 6

‘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.

Question 7

R v R

Answer 7

unjust or outdated principle of law.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”

Question 8

Anderton v Ryan

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

R v Shivpuri

Answer 9

Overturned Anderton v Ryan.
Defendant believed himself to be transporting drugs which turned out to be vegetable matter. Belief/ intent was enough to convict.

Question 10

Duncan v Cammel, Laird & Co

Answer 10

Overturned by Conway v Rimmer

Confidentiality and public interest immunity came first therefore documents could not be viewed.

Question 11

Conway v Rimmer

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch

Answer 12

Overruled by R v Howe

There was a defence of duress for murder

Question 13

R v Howe

Answer 13

Overruled DPP for NI v Lynch

Removed the defence of duress for murder

Question 14

Liesbosch Dredger

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Lagden v O’Connor

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Addie v Dumbreck

Answer 16

Overruled by British Railways Board v Herrington

Occupier of premises only liable to a trespassing child if child was harmed intentionally or recklessly.

Question 17

British Railways Board v Herrington

Answer 17

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?

Question 18

Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd

Answer 18

Lord Cross “does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it…”
Reluctance to use the PS

Question 19

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

C v DPP

Answer 20

Reluctance to use the PS. Refusal to abolish the presumption of doli incapax

Question 21

Lord Lowry’s guidelines

Answer 21

• 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.