SherbyNet - /page/wikibook/entry.mu

Micron Document

<!DOCTYPE html>

<title>Practice Statement</title>

</head>

<span id="openzim-page-title" class="mw-page-title-main"><span class="mw-page-title-main">Practice Statement</span></span>

</h1>

</header>

<p>

The <b>Practice Statement</b> [1966] 3 All ER 77<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>1<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> was a statement made in the <a href="House_of_Lords" title="House of Lords">House of Lords</a> by <a href="Gerald_Gardiner%2C_Baron_Gardiner" title="Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner">Lord Gardiner</a> LC on 26 July 1966 on behalf of himself and the <a href="Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary" title="Lords of Appeal in Ordinary">Lords of Appeal in Ordinary</a>, that they would depart from precedent in the Lords in order to achieve justice.

</p>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Background">Background</h2></div>

<p>Until the year 1966, the <a href="Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords" title="Judicial functions of the House of Lords">House of Lords</a> in the <a href="United_Kingdom" title="United Kingdom">United Kingdom</a> was bound to follow all of its previous decisions under the principle of <i><a href="Stare_decisis" class="mw-redirect" title="Stare decisis">stare decisis</a></i>, even if this created "injustice" and "unduly restrict(s) the proper development of the law" (<i>London Tramways Co. v London County Council</i> [1898] AC 375). The <b>Practice Statement</b> 1966 is authority for the House of Lords to depart from their previous decisions. It does not affect the <a href="Precedent" title="Precedent">precedential</a> value of cases in lower courts; all other courts that recognise the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) as the court of last resort are still bound by Supreme Court (and House of Lords) decisions. Before this, the only way a binding precedent could be avoided was to create new legislation on the matter.

</p><p>A germane example is the case of <i><a href="Anderton_v_Ryan" title="Anderton v Ryan">Anderton v Ryan</a></i> (1985)<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-2"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>2<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> where the House of Lords interpreted the <a href="Criminal_Attempts_Act_1981" title="Criminal Attempts Act 1981">Criminal Attempts Act 1981</a> in such a way as to make the Act virtually ineffective. Only one year later in <i><a href="R_v_Shivpuri" title="R v Shivpuri">R v Shivpuri</a></i> (1986)<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>3<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> <a href="Nigel_Bridge%2C_Baron_Bridge_of_Harwich" title="Nigel Bridge, Baron Bridge of Harwich">Lord Bridge</a> (a member of the erroneous majority in <i>Anderton</i>) acknowledged the error and said "the Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has been distorted by the law, the sooner it is corrected the better".<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-4"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>4<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup>

</p><p>By contrast, in <i> Knuller v DPP</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-5"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>5<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> <a href="James_Reid%2C_Baron_Reid" title="James Reid, Baron Reid">Lord Reid</a>, who had previously given a strong <a href="Precedent#Dissenting_opinions" title="Precedent">dissenting judgment</a> in <i>Shaw v DPP</i>,<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-6"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>6<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> said while he still disagreed with the majority decision in that case, in the interests of certainty <a href="Obiter_dictum#Dissenting_judgments_or_opinions" title="Obiter dictum">he would not overturn</a> <i>Shaw</i> (even though the Practice Statement had given authority to do so).

</p><p>Suggestions that a rigid adherence to <i>stare decisis</i> be dropped had been made prior to 1966, initially by <a href="Robert_Wright%2C_Baron_Wright" title="Robert Wright, Baron Wright">Lord Wright</a> in an article for the <i><a href="Cambridge_Law_Journal" title="Cambridge Law Journal">Cambridge Law Journal</a></i> in 1943, and by <a href="Gerald_Gardiner%2C_Baron_Gardiner" title="Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner">Lord Gardiner</a> and others in the 1963 book, <i>Law Reform Now</i>.<sup id="cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Blom-CooperDickson2009-7"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>7<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-8"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>8<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup>

</p>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Content">Content</h2></div>

<p>This is the text of the Practice Statement:

</p>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{padding-left:1.6em}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><blockquote class="templatequote"><p>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.

</p><p>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 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.

</p><p>In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlement of property, and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.

</p><p>

This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this House.</p></blockquote><div class="templatequotecite"><p style="display: inline; padding-left: 2.3em;">— <a href="Gerald_Gardiner%2C_Baron_Gardiner" title="Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner">Lord Gardiner</a>'s statement in the House of Lords, 26 July 1966</p></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Reception">Reception</h2></div>

<p><a href="Louis_Blom-Cooper" title="Louis Blom-Cooper">Louis Blom-Cooper</a> described the change brought about by the Practice Statement as being as if the Lords "dropped a pebble into the judicial pool that produced not merely a few ripples but also a seismic wave in English juridicial thinking ... the story of that legally historic event displays the carapace of traditional English lawyers' disinclination readily to accept radical change and to the cautious application of such change, once it is ultimately conceded".<sup id="cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Blom-CooperDickson2009-7"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>7<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup>

</p><p>Following the passage of the <a href="Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005" title="Constitutional Reform Act 2005">Constitutional Reform Act 2005</a>, the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="Supreme Court of the United Kingdom">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</a> was established in 2009. It follows the precedent of its predecessor. In <i>Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark</i><sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-9"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>9<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court:

</p>

<blockquote class="templatequote"><p>25. The Supreme Court has not thought it necessary to re-issue the Practice Statement as a fresh statement of practice in the Court’s own name. This is because it has as much effect in this Court as it did before the Appellate Committee in the House of Lords. It was part of the established jurisprudence relating to the conduct of appeals in the House of Lords which was transferred to this Court by section 40 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.</p></blockquote>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Invocations_in_case_law">Invocations in case law</h2></div>

<p>Between 1966 and the replacement of the House of Lords by the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="Supreme Court of the United Kingdom">Supreme Court</a> in 2009, the Practice Statement was explicitly invoked in 21 cases,<sup id="cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Blom-CooperDickson2009-7"><span class="cite-bracket">[</span>7<span class="cite-bracket">]</span></a></sup> including:

</p>

<ul><li><i>Conway v Rimmer</i>, overruling <i>Duncan v Cammell Laird Co</i></li>

<li><i>Herrington v British Railways Board</i>, overruling <i>Robert Addie & Sons (Colliers) Ltd v Dumbreck</i></li>

<li><i><a href="R_v_Shivpuri" title="R v Shivpuri">R v Shivpuri</a></i>, overruling <i><a href="Anderton_v_Ryan" title="Anderton v Ryan">Anderton v Ryan</a></i></li>

<li><i><a href="R_v_G" title="R v G">R v G</a></i>, overruling <i><a href="R_v_Caldwell" class="mw-redirect" title="R v Caldwell">R v Caldwell</a></i></li>

<li><i><a href="Murphy_v_Brentwood_DC" title="Murphy v Brentwood DC">Murphy v Brentwood DC</a></i>, overruling <i><a href="Anns_v_Merton_LBC" title="Anns v Merton LBC">Anns v Merton LBC</a></i></li>

<li><i>Crown v Adomako</i>, overruling <i>R v Zuckerberg</i></li></ul>

<ul><li><i><a href="Re_Spectrum_Plus_Ltd" title="Re Spectrum Plus Ltd">Re Spectrum Plus Ltd</a></i></li>

<li><i><a href="Young_v_Bristol_Aeroplane_Co_Ltd" title="Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd">Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd</a></i>—sets out when the Court of Appeal may depart from its own precedent</li></ul>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Notes">Notes</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .reflist{margin-bottom:0.5em;list-style-type:decimal}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .reflist{font-size:90%}}.mw-parser-output .reflist .references{font-size:100%;margin-bottom:0;list-style-type:inherit}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-2{column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-3{column-width:25em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns{margin-top:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns ol{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns li{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-alpha{list-style-type:upper-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-roman{list-style-type:upper-roman}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-alpha{list-style-type:lower-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-greek{list-style-type:lower-greek}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-roman{list-style-type:lower-roman}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div class="reflist">

<li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-1">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See also [1966] 1 WLR 1234; [1966] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 151; (1986) 83 Cr. App. R. 191 (Note); (1966) 110 S.J. 584</span>

</li>

</li>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>The English Legal System</i> (17th ed). <i>Slapper v Kelly</i>. <style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1238218222">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free.id-lock-free a{background:url("./mw/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited.id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration.id-lock-registration a{background:url("./mw/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription.id-lock-subscription a{background:url("./mw/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("./mw/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-size:contain;padding:0 1em 0 0}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#085;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>9-781138-944459</bdi></span>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-5">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP</i> [1973] A.C. 435</span>

</li>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Blom-CooperDickson2009-7"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Blom-CooperDickson2009_7-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><cite id="CITEREFBlom-CooperDicksonDrewry2009" class="citation book cs1">Blom-Cooper, Louis Jacques; Dickson, Brice; Drewry, Gavin (13 August 2009). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HnS7BxLJ9DcC&pg=PA130"><i>The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009</i></a>. Oxford University Press. pp. <span class="nowrap">128–</span>144. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-19-953271-1</bdi>.</cite></span>

</li>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-9">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2009-0037"><i>Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark</i></a> [2010] UKSC 28</span>

</li>

</ol></div></div></div><div><div class="zim-footer">

This article is issued from <a class="external text" title="Last edited on 2025-07-02" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?title=Practice_Statement&oldid=1298484221">Wikipedia</a>. The text is available under <a class="external text" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0</a> unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

</div>

</div></div>

</div>

</main>

</div>

</body></html>