R v Spencer
The Criminal Division generally follows its own decisions in the same way as the Civil Division, except where departing would avoid an injustice to the defendant.
Facts
Mr Spencer, a nurse at a special hospital, was convicted of ill treating patients. The trial judge had given a direction about the need to warn the jury of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence of witnesses who were patients detained in the hospital. On appeal, the question arose whether the Court of Appeal was bound by an earlier decision of its own on the required direction.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal said that, in general, there should be no difference in the application of stare decisis in the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal, save that the Criminal Division may depart from a previous decision where the defendant would otherwise suffer injustice. The case clarified that the greater flexibility recognised in R v Gould applies only where following the earlier decision would cause an injustice to the defendant.
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.
