Should Court of Appeal Depart from Supreme Court Decisions?

Title: The Ability of the Court of Appeal to Depart from Decisions of the Supreme Court in the English Legal System

Introduction

In the English legal system, the hierarchy of courts plays a crucial role in ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of the law. The Supreme Court serves as the highest appellate court, with the power to establish binding legal precedents. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal operates as an intermediate appellate court, primarily tasked with hearing appeals from lower courts. The debate over whether the Court of Appeal should be able to depart from decisions of the Supreme Court is a contentious issue that raises questions about the balance between maintaining the rule of precedent and ensuring flexibility in the law.

For: Reasons Supporting the Ability of the Court of Appeal to Depart from Supreme Court Decisions

Lord Denning’s Views: Lord Denning, a prominent judge known for his innovative approach to the law, advocated for the Court of Appeal's ability to depart from decisions of the Supreme Court in certain circumstances. Denning believed that rigid adherence to precedent could lead to injustice and that the Court of Appeal should have the discretion to depart from Supreme Court decisions when necessary.

Few Cases Reach the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court hears only a limited number of cases each year, meaning that many legal issues are resolved at the Court of Appeal level. Allowing the Court of Appeal to depart from Supreme Court decisions can provide a more efficient way of addressing legal issues that may not warrant a full appeal to the highest court.

Examples of Cases: Precedents such as Schorsch Meier v Henning (1975), Miliangos v George Frank (1976), Broome v Cassell (1971), and Rookes v Barnard (1964) demonstrate instances where the Court of Appeal's departure from Supreme Court decisions resulted in more just outcomes.

Against: Reasons Opposing the Ability of the Court of Appeal to Depart from Supreme Court Decisions

Breakdown of Precedent System: Allowing the Court of Appeal to depart from Supreme Court decisions could undermine the hierarchical nature of the courts and lead to inconsistency in the application of the law. This breakdown of the precedent system could create uncertainty and unpredictability in legal outcomes.

Conflicting Precedents: If the Court of Appeal is permitted to depart from Supreme Court decisions, lower courts may be faced with conflicting precedents to choose from when deciding cases. This would make it challenging for lawyers to advise their clients effectively and could result in contradictory rulings across different jurisdictions.

Limited Use of Leapfrog System: The leapfrog system, which allows cases to bypass the Court of Appeal and proceed directly to the Supreme Court, is available only in limited circumstances where the case involves a point of general public importance. Allowing the Court of Appeal to depart from Supreme Court decisions may circumvent the intended purpose of the leapfrog system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over whether the Court of Appeal should be able to depart from decisions of the Supreme Court is a complex issue that involves competing considerations of legal certainty, flexibility, and efficiency. While there are valid arguments both for and against this proposition, it is essential to strike a balance between the need for consistent legal precedent and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Ultimately, any departure from Supreme Court decisions by the Court of Appeal should be carefully considered and justified to ensure the integrity of the legal system.