Practical exercise 10.2.1
Why not experiment with different approaches to note-taking?
While watching the following lecture video take notes using your usual method and then watch it again trying a different approach: if you usually write by hand, try typing and vice versa. You might even like to try listening without making notes and seeing how much information you can retain afterwards. Have a look at the different sets of notes you have created and compare your notes with some example notes from the authors that follow. Can you see much difference in them and, if so, which do you think is the most effective?
<insert lecture video – use video from previous edn online resources>
Example 1 flow chart
<UNFIG001 – use image from previous edn online resources>
Example 2 linear
Last lecture—doctrine of precedent in the House of Lords.
London Tramways case. 1966 Practice Statement, Lord Gardiner—HL would depart from its own previous decisions. Key phrase—‘where it appears right to do so’
Precedent in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Key case: Young v. Bristol Aeroplane
CA considered situations in which it would not be bound by its own previous decisions. Decided that it was normally bound, subject to three exceptions:
- Own previous decisions conflict.
CA can choose which of the earlier decisions to follow.
Status of previous decisions is not affected. CA is not overruling its previous decisions—just attempting to reconciling by choosing which one to follow.
Can happen when CA is unaware of development in law or recent case.
Quite rare—e.g. on handout NatWest v. Powney.
- Previous decision of CA has been implicitly overruled by HL
e.g. Family Housing Association v. Jones—CA refused to follow one of its own previous decisions because it was inconsistent with HL decision in Street v. Mountford—even though HL had not explicitly overruled previous CA authority, CA considered that it was bound by HL.
Can also happen when ‘leapfrog procedure’ comes into play—appeal directly from High Court to HL—quite an unusual circumstance.
- Previous decision was made per incuriam
Per incuriam = Latin phrase meaning ‘through carelessness’
In Morelle v. Wakeling—decision made in ignorance or forgetfulness—i.e. without due regard for the law (CA made a mistake in coming to its previous decision)
CA governed by the same exceptions as Young v. Bristol Aeroplane.
But following R v. Gould—CA has more flexibility in criminal cases because liberty of the individual is at stake. The court has due regard to ensure that individual’s rights are not adversely affected by its own previous decisions.