The Supreme Court 13

● R v Adomako (1994), which overruled R v Seymour (1983) on the test

for recklessness in manslaughter;
● R v G and R (2003), which overruled Caldwell (1982) on objective
recklessness in criminal damage.
6 However, there are also many examples of refusal to use the Practice
Statement. See, for example:
● Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services (1972);
● R v Kansal (No 2) (2001) on whether the Human Rights Act 1998
was retrospective.

◗ 2.4 The Supreme Court

1 In October 2009, the House of Lords was abolished and replaced by the
Supreme Court.
2 The Practice Direction applied to the House of Lords and, strictly
speaking, does not apply to the Supreme Court.
3 The Practice Rules of the Supreme Court state that ‘If an application for
permission to appeal asks the Supreme Court to depart from one of its
own decisions or from one of the House of Lords’, this should be stated
clearly in the application and full details must be given.
4 Also in Austin v London Borough of Southwark (2010) The Supreme
Court confirmed that the power to use the Practice Statement had been
transferred to them, although they did not use the Practice Statement in
Copyright © 2014. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.

that case.
5 This shows that the Supreme Court is prepared to depart from previous
decisions. However, it seems likely that the court will only do so where
there is a very good reason to do so.

Martin, Jacqueline. English Legal System, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UNICAF/detail.action?docID=1588685.
Created from UNICAF on 2022-01-26 08:14:33.