The court system and precedent

The English legal system operates through a strict hierarchy of binding precedent (stare decisis): lower courts must follow decisions of higher courts, and most courts are bound by their own previous decisions. This produces consistency and predictability at the cost of flexibility. The apex court (formerly House of Lords, now Supreme Court) can depart from its own previous decisions 'when it appears right to do so' under the Practice Statement 1966. The Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions except in three narrow circumstances established in Young v Bristol Aeroplane. The doctrine requires courts to identify and apply the ratio decidendi (binding legal principle) while treating obiter dicta (incidental comments) as merely persuasive.

London Tramways Co v London County Council [1898] AC 375: Established that the House of Lords was absolutely bound by its own previous decisions. Created doctrinal rigidity that lasted until 1966.

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234: Lord Gardiner LC announced the Lords would depart from previous decisions 'when it appears right to do so', explicitly recognising the need for certainty in criminal law and settled commercial arrangements. Preserved binding precedent while introducing limited flexibility.

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718: Established three exceptions where Court of Appeal not bound by its own decisions: (a) conflicting Court of Appeal decisions; (b) decisions inconsistent with House of Lords/Supreme Court authority; (c) decisions reached per incuriam. Remains the modern position.

Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264: House of Lords rejected Lord Denning MR's attempt to expand Court of Appeal's flexibility beyond Young v Bristol exceptions. Reinforced orthodox approach to Court of Appeal precedent.

R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8: Supreme Court used Practice Statement powers to overturn joint enterprise doctrine. Demonstrates modern willingness to depart from established precedent where appropriate.

Courts first identify their position in the hierarchy: Magistrates'/County Courts → Crown Court/High Court → Court of Appeal → Supreme Court. Next, determine whether any binding precedent exists from a higher court or (for Court of Appeal/Supreme Court) from the same court. If bound, extract the ratio decidendi by identifying the legal principle necessary for the decision—distinguish this from non-binding obiter dicta. Where unwelcome precedent exists, attempt to distinguish by identifying material factual or legal differences. The Supreme Court asks whether departure is 'right' considering: (1) whether previous decision clearly wrong; (2) impact on settled arrangements; (3) need for certainty in criminal law. Court of Appeal checks if any Young v Bristol exception applies.

Students regularly confuse obiter dicta with binding ratio decidendi—only the ratio binds. Many wrongly assume Court of Appeal has same flexibility as Supreme Court; it remains constrained by Young v Bristol exceptions. Others forget the Practice Statement 1966 altogether or cite pre-2009 House of Lords cases as 'Supreme Court' decisions (Supreme Court only existed from 2009). Distinguishing is often conflated with overruling: distinguishing identifies differences to avoid applying precedent; overruling replaces the rule entirely. Watch ratio identification—it's construction not discovery.