However the House of Lords will not always use the practice Direction. In C v DPP 4 they considered the law on child criminals. They refused to change the law as they felt if a change was required it was best left to parliament to decide. The use of this Practice Statement could therefore give judges the opportunity to make Law
The Court of Appeal has a more limited ability to be creative as they are generally bound by their own previous decision. There are however exceptions to this, when there is a conflicting decision in the House of Lords, the previous decision was made in unawareness of the relevant law and there are two conflicting previous decisions. This is laid down in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd 5 the court here can refuse to follow its own earlier decision where it feels the decision to have been made wrong.
There are certain situations were judges can avoid awkward precedent by distinguishing on the facts. In Elliot and Quinn 6 “where the facts of the case before the judge are significantly different from those of the earlier ones, then the judge distinguishes the two cases and need not follow the earlier one.” Often judges distinguish on narrow grounds to avoid precedent.
Higher courts can also reverse and overrule lower courts decisions. Reversing occurs where a case is appealed and the higher court changes the decision. This then sets a new precedent. For example, Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd 7
Where the House of Lords overruled the Court of Appeal and stated that a same-sex partner can inherit a tenancy. Overruling occurs where a judge in a higher court decides that he is not going to follow the precedent set in an earlier case by a lower court. This type of situation is rarely used because it weakens the influence and respect of the lower courts.
Where there are new cases judges have no option but to be creative when deciding the outcome as there is no previous precedent. In Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority 8 In this case as there were no previous decisions by Parliament, the judges had to make up a decision and here it is clear that in cases like these they make the law. “The House of Lords held that, by a majority of three to two that a girl under 16 did not have to have parental consent if she was mature enough to make up her own mind”.
Another example where judges have decided the law on new cases where Parliament has not debated on is Airedale NHS v Bland 9, where Tony Bland was in comma after the Hillsborough stadium disaster. The court had to decide whether to turn off the life support machine or not. Here the judges had to make the law and had decided to turn off the machine as it was in the patients best interest.
When it comes to interpreting statutes, the judges will use one of the three rules on interpretation to work out what Parliament meant and then apply it to the case. The first rule is the literal rule; it fits in with parliamentary sovereignty where parliament being elected is the supreme law makers. The judges not have been elected are therefore doing what parliament intended. An example of the literal rule is in the case of Whitely v Chappell 10, In this case the court held that on a literal interpretation of the words of the particular legislation, Whitely could not be convicted of impersonating “any person entitled to vote at an election”, as the person he had impersonated was dead.
The second rule is the Golden rule, where if the judge feels that the literal rule gives an absurd result which parliament could not have intended then they would apply the golden rule. A case illustrating this is Maddox v Storer 11, where it was an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1960, to drive more than 30mph in a vehicle adapted to carry more than seven passengers, in this case it was a minibus made to carry 11 passengers. The court held that ‘adapted to’ could be taken to mean ‘suitable for’.
If however judges went on to apply the mischief rule the outcome may well be different. Under this rule the judges consider why the law was passed, in other words what mischief was it trying to remedy. A case that shows this is Smith v Hughes 12, where it was a criminal offence to solicit customers “in a street” this was against The Street Offence Act 1959. The problem here was that the judges had to decide what parliament meant when they said “in a street”. The judges had decided that even if the women weren’t in a street solicitation had taken place.
Footnotes
-
R v Hinds [1979] Crim LR 111
- Practice Statement [1966] 3 All ER 77
-
R v R [1992] 1 AC 599
-
C v DPP [1994] 3 WLR 888
-
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1946] AC 163, [1944] KB 718 13
-
Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn, ‘The English Legal System’ (7th Editions, Published in 2006, Pearson Educated Limited)
-
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 705
-
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112, [1985] 3 All ER 402.
-
Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
-
Whitely v Chappell (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 147
-
Maddox v Storer [1963] 1 QBD 451
-
Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859
Bibliography
-
Gary Slapper and David Kelly ‘The English Legal System’ (9th Edition, Published in 2009, Routledge-Cavendish) 32-33
-
- Accessed on 2rd Novmber 2008 at 11:00pm
- Alisdair A. Gillespie ‘The English Legal System’ (Published in 2007. Oxford University Press) 160-160
-
227-228 Accessed on 3rd November 2008 at 6:20pm
-
Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn, ‘The English Legal System’ (7th Editions, Published in 2006, Pearson Educated Limited) 13-13
-
Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn, ‘The English Legal System’ (7th Editions, Published in 2006, Pearson Educated Limited) 16-16
-
Gary Slapper and David Kelly ‘The English Legal System’ (9th Edition, Published in 2009, Routledge-Cavendish) 48-49
-
Catherine Elliot and Frances Quinn, ‘The English Legal System’ (7th Editions, Published in 2006, Pearson Educated Limited) 25-25
-
Accessed on 6th November 2008 at 5:30pm
-
Accessed on 6th November 2008 at 5:30pm
-
Accessed on 7th November 2008 at 10:40 am
-
Accessed on 6th November 2008 at 6:30pm
Table of Cases
Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
C v DPP [1994] 3 WLR 888.
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 705.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112, [1985] 3 All ER 402
Maddox v Storer [1963] 1 QBD 451
R v Hinds [1979] Crim LR 111
R v R [1992] 1 AC 599.
Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859
Whitely v Chappell (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 147
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1946] AC 163, [1944] KB 718 13.
Table of Statutes
Road Traffic Act 1960
Street Offence Act 1959