supreme court

• HISTORY OF THE SC
• What could the supreme court do about their own past decisions?


  They could overrule them
• Why was the SC being able to overrule their past decisions bad?


  Because it came with little guidance as to its appropriate usage
• THE CHANGE:
• What is the change example?


  London street Tramways co v London county council (1898)
• What was the legal significance of this case?

  Was when the SC changed to be completely bound by their own previous decisions
• what was the one exception within this being bound rule?

  If a decision was made incuriam (in error) it could be changed
• what were the problems with being bound by all past decisions?

  - Stifled (restraining) legal development

  - Law was unable to reflect society's changing views

  - HL was forcing itself to apply precedents it thought were wrong

  - Parliament were the only ones who could change the law
• THE CHANGE BACK:
• When was the HL given back their flexibility?


  1966
• How did the change back happen?

  The lord Chancellor (Lord Gardiner) issued a "practice statement"
• What did the practice statement do?


  Announced a reversal of the rule set in London street Tramways
• What did the practice statement specifically say?


  Depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so
• What did the practice statement need?


  especial need for certainty as to the criminal law (law must be clear, precise & worded in a way that is understandable)
• What were the effects of the PS?


  - supreme court assumed power of the practice statement in 2009

  - when judges decide to use the practice statement it overrules their previous decision
• Give the double civil case example that were effected by the PS


  - Addie v Dumbrek (1929)

  - British Railways Board v Herrington (1972)
• explain how Addie v Dumbrek & Railways v Herrington link


  - An occupier only owes a duty of care to trespassers if injuries were caused recklessly / deliberately

  
  

  - Addie v Dumbrek decision was not followed instead said: There is a general duty of care towards trespassers where risks are foreseeable