Introduction
The doctrine of judicial precedent, often referred to by the Latin maxim stare decisis (to stand by things decided), is a cornerstone of the English legal system. Its primary function is to ensure that the law is applied consistently and predictably, promoting certainty and fairness. This is achieved through a hierarchical system where the legal rulings of senior courts are binding on courts lower in the structure. This essay will explain the operation of the doctrine of precedent by examining the roles and obligations of the key courts within the judicial hierarchy of England and Wales.
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the court hierarchy is the Supreme Court, which replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in 2009. As the final court of appeal, its decisions on points of law are binding on all other courts in the English and Welsh legal system. For many years, the House of Lords was also bound by its own previous decisions, a rigid principle established in London Street Tramways v London County Council (1898). The rationale was that certainty in the law was more important than the possibility of individual hardship caused by an earlier, potentially incorrect, decision.
However, this inflexibility was recognised as a potential obstacle to the development of the law. Consequently, in 1966, Lord Gardiner issued the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234. This statement declared that the House of Lords (and now the Supreme Court) would be able to depart from its own previous decisions "when it appears right to do so". This power is used sparingly to avoid creating uncertainty, but it allows the highest court to adapt the law to changing social conditions or to correct earlier decisions. A clear example of this power being used was in R v Shivpuri (1987), which overruled the decision in Anderton v Ryan (1985) on the law of criminal attempts, made only one year earlier.
The Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal is situated below the Supreme Court and is bound by its decisions. The Court of Appeal is also, as a general rule, bound by its own past decisions. This principle was firmly established in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944), which set out three key exceptions to this rule. The Court of Appeal is not bound by a previous decision if:
- There are two conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal. In this situation, the court can choose which decision to follow.
- A previous decision of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with a later decision of the Supreme Court (or House of Lords). In such cases, the decision of the higher court must be followed.
- The previous decision was made per incuriam (through lack of care). This applies where the earlier court failed to consider a relevant statute or binding precedent that would have affected its decision.
The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal operates with slightly more flexibility than the Civil Division, particularly if a person's liberty is at stake, as confirmed in R v Taylor (1950).
The High Court and Lower Courts
The High Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Individual High Court judges are not strictly bound by each other's decisions, but these judgments are considered to be of strong persuasive authority and are usually followed to maintain consistency. However, the decisions of Divisional Courts of the High Court (such as the King's Bench Divisional Court) are binding on judges in the same division.
Below the High Court, the Crown Court, County Court, and Magistrates' Courts are all bound to follow the decisions of the superior courts. These lower courts are primarily concerned with applying established law to the facts before them and do not create binding precedents for any other court. For a precedent to be binding, it must originate from the ratio decidendi (the legal reason for the decision) of a case. Any other statements made by a judge, known as obiter dicta (things said by the way), are not binding but may be considered as persuasive authority by a later court.
Conclusion
In summary, the doctrine of judicial precedent operates through a clear and rigid hierarchy. The Supreme Court's decisions bind all lower courts, but it retains the flexibility to depart from its own past rulings. The Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court and, subject to limited exceptions, by its own previous decisions. All lower courts are bound by the rulings of these senior courts. This hierarchical structure ensures a high degree of legal certainty and consistency, while the limited flexibility at the highest level allows the common law to evolve over time. The system thereby seeks to balance the competing needs for predictability and the development of justice.
References
Elliott, C. and Quinn, F. (2020) English Legal System. 21st edn. Pearson.
Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560.
London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898] AC 575.
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234.
R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1.
R v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718.
