The statement above requires an analysis of the common law regarding the concept of practice statement and significant ways in which its ambit was tried to increase. To the core of law relating to judges and their role in hierarchy goes the debate between certainty and flexibility. In order to analyse the statement we would have to answer various questions as to what is hierarchy system? How does it operate? How has the practice statement in 1966 changed the working of House of Lords (HOL) decision making with relation to other courts? And to what extent have the attempts of court of appeal in particular, Lord Dennig, been successful in extending the scope of practice statement to cover court of appeal?
First of all we need to see as to what is the role of courts and how do the help ensure certainty in decision making? Courts in England legal system include county courts and magistrate courts, crown courts, high courts which have three divisions (family, queens bench and chancery divisions), court of appeal, house of lords now called supreme court from October 2009 onwards, judicial committee of privy council, European court of justice and European court of human rights. A decision consist of two elements ratio decendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decendi is the ground upon which a decision is based while obiter dicta are the things said by the way. Essential to this is the doctrine of stare decisis which says ‘let the decision stand’. It is the ratio decendi which is binding in the later case. This is how a precedent is created where courts lower in the hierarchy having to follow the decisions of the higher courts and sometimes their own. This is the authoritative precedent. Persuasive precedent is when decision is not binding but it has to be taken into account due to its persuasive nature when deciding a later case. However for courts to follow a decision the facts should be highly similar. Judges have various tools such as techniques under following and that...