pteron said:
My understanding was that it didn't actually go to appeal in the Lords, the leave was refused. The appeal court did make a "point of general public importance"
which allowed the Lords to pick it up if they wanted to, but they didn't.
Are you saying that because leave to appeal to the Lords has been denied in one case it must be denied in subsequent cases? That is not my understanding of the law and it doesn't strike me as sensible.
For the benefit of others reading this, the principle pteron and I are discussing is called
stare decisis, Lat. "to stand by that which is decided". It's the principle which our legal system follows. It means that if a judge passes a ruling, then all judges and courts junior to him, are bound to follow that decision. However a senior judge or court can overturn that decision.
I think it was '93, that saw an entheusiastic lawyer convince a crown court judge that a locking knife should be considered a fixed blade in law. This was the Harris v DPP case and has became known as the Harris ruling. It means that all junior judges thereafter are bound by that decision (all Magistrates Courts and other Crown Courts). But at the time, a more senior judge could overturn it. In a later case, that ruling was indeed challenged. Deegan v Regina in the court of appeal ...a more senior court. The decision was
upheld, which meant that all judges and courts junior to the court of appeal MUST abide by that ruling.
The court/judge hierarchy in the UK is like this (in order)...
Magistrates Court, Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
This means, according to the principle of
stare decisis, that all Magistrates Courts, Crown Courts, High Courts and the Court of Appeal itself must recognise and abide by Deegan v Regina ruling (the same argument as Harris). So all of these courts MUST view a lock knife as a fixed blade.
pteron and I are not arguing this point.
What we are debating, is the next step. Deegan petitioned an appeal to the House of Lords, which was refused. It was my understanding that this meant stare decisis was then extended to include the Law lords, the highest court in the land before parliament. Pteron is saying that the case must be heard in the Lords and a ruling passed before stare decisis is extended to include them.
My thoughts ...I dont know the law that well. I'm a lay person with a keen interest because of my hobby, but no more. pteron has a professional interest and his word should be taken over mine.
pteron, can you provide some reference to clarify? I dont have access to the legal resources you do and while I dont doubt you are right, it's an important point I would like to be clear about. If stare decisis is applied simply for a refusal of a petition, then only parliament can change things. If not, then at least the Lords are still an option.
(it should be noted, that the Law Lords aren't the same as the House of Lords in Parliament, they are a group of uber-senior judges, called the Law Lords, dont confuse the two.)
...I also hear you regarding international courts.
For all intents and purposes though, whatever the answer to this question is, unless you have the will and financial clout to take your argument to the Lords(?) and possibly further, you are snookered.
