Editing Practice Statement (section)

==Background==
Until the year 1966, the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] in the [[United Kingdom]] was bound to follow all of its previous decisions under the principle of ''[[stare decisis]]'', even if this created "injustice" and "unduly restrict(s) the proper development of the law" (''[[London Tramways Co. v London County Council]]'' [1898] AC 375). The '''Practice Statement''' 1966 is authority for the House of Lords to depart from their previous decisions. It does not affect the [[precedent]]ial value of cases in lower courts; all other courts that recognise the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) as the court of last resort are still bound by Supreme Court (and House of Lords) decisions. Before this, the only way a binding precedent could be avoided was to create new legislation on the matter.

A germane example is the case of ''[[Anderton v Ryan]]'' (1985)<ref>1985 AC 560</ref> where the House of Lords interpreted the [[Criminal Attempts Act 1981]] in such a way as to make the Act virtually ineffective. Only one year later in ''[[R v Shivpuri]]'' (1986)<ref>1987 AC 1</ref> [[Nigel Bridge, Baron Bridge of Harwich|Lord Bridge]] (a member of the erroneous majority in ''Anderton'') acknowledged the error and said "the Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has been distorted by the law, the sooner it is corrected the better".<ref>''The English Legal System''  (17th ed). ''Slapper v Kelly''. {{ISBN|9-781138-944459}}</ref>

By contrast, in '' Knuller v DPP'',<ref>''Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP'' [1973] A.C. 435</ref> [[James Reid, Baron Reid|Lord Reid]], who had previously given a strong [[Precedent#Dissenting opinions|dissenting judgment]] in ''Shaw v DPP'',<ref>''Shaw v DPP'' [1962] AC 220</ref> said while he still disagreed with the majority decision in that case, in the interests of certainty [[Obiter dictum#Dissenting judgments or opinions|he would not overturn]] ''Shaw'' (even though the Practice Statement had given authority to do so).

Suggestions that a rigid adherence to ''stare decisis'' be dropped had been made prior to 1966, initially by [[Robert Wright, Baron Wright|Lord Wright]] in an article for the ''[[Cambridge Law Journal]]'' in 1943, and by [[Gerald Gardiner, Baron Gardiner|Lord Gardiner]] and others in the 1963 book, ''Law Reform Now''.<ref name="Blom-CooperDickson2009">{{cite book |first1=Louis Jacques |last1=Blom-Cooper |first2=Brice |last2=Dickson |first3=Gavin |last3=Drewry |title=The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HnS7BxLJ9DcC&pg=PA130|date=13 August 2009 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-953271-1 |pages=128–144}}</ref><ref>(1944) 8 CLJ 118{{fcn|reason=This looks like a case citation missing the litigants|{{subst:DATE}}|date=February 2023}}</ref>