Critically assess whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use Essay

Critically assess whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use of Practice Statement 1966 should be more racial than that - Essay Example Thus, the House of Lords can depart from the previous decisions as well as the precedents that have been set previously, if it wishes to in circumstances where the precedents are either out of date or erroneous. This set a turning point in the judicial history of the United Kingdom. As the process of law development is one which is evolving continuously, scholars have discussed how the practice statement of 1966 can be used more radically. This study critically assesses whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use of the Practice Statement 1966 should be more radical than that of the House of Lords, in order to achieve reform of the law. Prior to understanding the various scenarios where the Practice Statement has been used, it is necessary to also understand certain terms that are used commonly with regard to it. The first one is rules of precedent. Precedent is the concept that any rule that has been established in an earlier case should be adhered to in cases that are simila r, so that similar cases should be given similar outcomes (Garner, 2009). It also means that inferior courts should stand by the decisions that have been made in a superior court. The other important terms include ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. Ratio decident translates to reason for the decision and obiter dictum translates to statements made by the way or in passing. These are two parts of a ruling made by the judge (Garner, 2009). Ratio Decidendi explains laws based on which any particular judgment has been made. During the process of judgment delivery, the judge is bound to explain the law and reason based on which he or she arrived at the particular ruling. These are included in the 'law report' and hence, it forms the 'basis of precedent'. Obiter dicta, which are the statements that have been passed by the way and hence they are not binding (Garner, 2009). For example, the discussion or speculations that are made by a judge on how his or her decision would change if the si tuations had been different fall under obiter dictum. While Obiter dictum is not binding, it is often used as a reference or persuasive agent in future cases. Before the Practice Statement was introduced in 1966, there were several instances where the House could not bring about a change from the precedent set because of the rigid stare decisis 'let the previous decision stay'. One such example is that of London Tramway Co Vs. London County Council (1898) (Erp, 2011). Regarding this matter, Lord Halsbury stated that once a decision has been made, it binds the House of Lords and all the other inferior courts. Halsbury said that, "I am therefore of opinion that in this case it is not competent for us to rehear and for counsel to reargue a question which has been recently decided." (Erp, 2011, 12) An important aspect to remember with regard to the Practice Statement of 1966 is that the decisions that have been made by the highest body (earlier the House of Lords and now the Supreme cou rt) are binding to all the other courts that come below it. In addition, the decision that have been made by the Supreme court also are binding on itself - however, the Practice statement has enabled it to depart from the previous decisions depending on the particular situations (McLeod, 2011) Practice Statement of 1966 has been used many times, but there are two main cases through which the use of Practice Statement of 1966 can be illustrated. The first major case is that of Herrington Vs. British Railways Board in 1972. In this case, the house