R v Gould
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) may depart from its own previous decisions more readily, where a person's liberty is at stake.
Facts
Mr Gould was convicted of bigamy after remarrying while he believed, on reasonable grounds, that his first marriage had been dissolved. In R v Wheat and Stocks [1921] 2 KB 119, the Court of Criminal Appeal had held that a mistaken belief that a previous marriage had been dissolved was no defence to bigamy. Mr Gould appealed against his conviction.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed the appeal, refusing to follow R v Wheat and Stocks. Diplock LJ said that in its criminal jurisdiction, where the liberty of the subject is at stake, the court does not apply the doctrine of stare decisis with the same rigidity as in its civil jurisdiction. If on due consideration the court is of the opinion that the law has been misapplied or misunderstood in an earlier decision, it will depart from that decision. The court held that an honest and reasonable belief that the first marriage had been dissolved was a defence.
Related cases on judicial precedent
- Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC 23, [2005] 2 AC 580
- Austin v Southwark London Borough Council [2010] UKSC 28, [2011] 1 AC 355
- British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877
- Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027
- Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910
- Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264
- Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 9, [2016] AC 908
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
