R v James and Karimi
In exceptional circumstances, the Court of Appeal followed a decision of the Privy Council in preference to one of the House of Lords.
Facts
Mr James and Mr Karimi were convicted of murder, and their appeals raised the question of how the jury should have been directed on provocation. Under the ordinary rules of precedent, the Court of Appeal was bound by the House of Lords decision in R v Smith (Morgan), which favoured the defendants. However, in Attorney General for Jersey v Holley, a nine judge Privy Council had decided that Smith (Morgan) was wrong.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of five, held that it should follow Holley rather than Smith (Morgan). Lord Phillips CJ said that this was an exceptional case: all nine Law Lords sitting in Holley had agreed that the decision would state the law of England and Wales, the majority in Holley would also form a majority of the House of Lords, and the result of an appeal to the House of Lords was a foregone conclusion. In those circumstances, it would be futile to follow Smith (Morgan). The court emphasised that this did not change the general rule that the Court of Appeal is bound by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court.
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.
