The court may depart in three circumstances:

(I) where there are two conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal;

(ii) where the previous decision of the Court of Appeal, even if not expressly overruled, conflicts with a House of Lords (now Supreme Court) decision;

(iii) where its previous decision was made per incuriam.

The defendant had exploited a number of care home residents into gifting him large sums of money. On appeal he alleged that the Court of Appeal were not bound by a decision of the Supreme Court which was merely obiter dicta.

The Court of Appeal ruled that where the Supreme Court directs that the lower courts are bound by its decision, even though strictly obiter dicta, the lower courts must be bound. The CA accepted that ordinary rules of precedent were slightly modified as a result. This principle would only apply where it was the unanimous view of the Supreme Court that it should bind lower courts.

The defendant wished to withdraw a guilty plea of bigamy. The Crown Court refused to allow the withdrawal on the grounds of a Court of Appeal decision (R v Wheat (1921)). The question was whether the Court could depart from that case.

‘If upon due consideration we were to be of the opinion that the law had been either misapplied or misunderstood in an earlier decision . . . we should be entitled to depart from the view as to the law expressed in the earlier decision notwithstanding that the case could not be brought within any of the exceptions laid down in Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.’ (Lord Diplock)