Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Outline how judges might avoid following precedent and discuss why they might wish to do so.
Member rating:
(4 votes)
| Words:
| Submitted: Tue Feb 24 2004
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
Outline how judges might avoid following precedent and discuss why they might wish to do so Before 1966, the House of Lords was bound by its own past decisions. They had to follow precedent made in the House of Lords, in the same was the Court of Appeal has to. However in 1966 Lord Gardiner introduced the Practice Statement that aloud the House of Lords to avoid following precedent "when it appears right to do so". This gave the House of Lords great flexibility, although they only use it sparingly, but when appropriate. It was six years after the Practice Statement was issued, before the House of Lords used it in a case to avoid following precedent (BRB v Herrington 1972). Another case it was used in was R v R (1990), where the House of Lords overruled its previous decision that a husband can not be criminally liable for raping...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 150,159 others
