“British courts have been slavishly following the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights and misinterpreting the Human Rights Act (HRA), according to the architect of the legislation.”
The Guardian, 14th December 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Jones v Kernott judgment does little to resolve the grey area of ex-cohabitees’ entitlements to a share in their former home.”
The Guardian, 10th November 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only ‘take account’ of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it.”
Daily Telegraph, 20th october 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Supreme Court is hearing a case which could have a dramatic effect on the property rights of unmarried couples who split up.”
BBC News, 4th May 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“A woman seeking compensation from a Norfolk hospital after taking over an MRSA sufferer’s damages claim could set a legal precedent, a court has heard.”
BBC News, 24th March 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Regina (C) v Same [2010] WLR (D) 193
“When it was not possible to reconcile a decision of the House of Lords in relation to the proportionality and legitimacy of the indefinite retention on the United Kingdom’s Police National Computer of biometric data obtained in the course of criminal investigations with a subsequent holding by the European Court of Human Rights that the policy was unlawful, the doctrine of precedent and legal certainty demanded that the Divisional Court should follow the decision of the House of Lords, notwithstanding that both the previous government and the newly elected government of the United Kingdom had signalled their intention to amend the relevant legislation.”
WLR Daily, 19th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Magro and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1575; [2010] WLR (D) 176
“Although a five-judge constitution of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had a discretion to decide that a previous decision of that court should not be treated as a binding decision when it was wrong, it was not entitled to disregard or deprive the only decision of a three-judge constitution of the court of its authority on a distinct and clearly identified point of law, reached after full argument and close analysis of the relevant legislative provisions.”
WLR Daily, 9th July 2010
Source; www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Last week, in the so-called Lotto rapist case, the law lords said the law was wrong and changed it. How can they do that?”
The Times, 6th February 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Board can depart from its own decisions
Gibson v. Government of the United States of America
Privy Council
“The principle of stare decisis was not absolute and the Privy Council could exercise its power to depart from precedent if it concluded that one of its own previous decisions was incorrect.”
The Times, 3rd August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication
Gibson v. Government of the United States of America
“The principle of stare decisis was not absolute and the Privy Council should exercise its power to depart from precedent if it concluded that one of its own previous decisions was incorrect, even if that incorrect decision could no longer be regarded as impeding the proper development of the law.”
WLR Daily, 23rd July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v. M and others (No. 2)
“Where a ruling made at a preparatory hearing was overturned on appeal and the Court of Appeal differently constituted in a subsequent case held that the earlier case had been decided per incuriam the judge was bound to follow the later decision in the interests of justice as a whole and on the basis that any rulings of law made at preparatory hearings had correctly to reflect the law which would govern the trial.”
WLR Daily, 27th April 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024