“The case came before a specially constituted five-judge court, including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Vice President of the Criminal Division and was concerned with the test of dishonesty in English criminal law. The court also had to consider the doctrine of precedent - which it described as the very foundation stone of the administration of justice and the rule of law - and to decide whether to follow a Court of Appeal decision which had stood for more than 35 years or a much more recent decision of the Supreme Court, even though, in the latter case, the Supreme Court’s consideration of the concept of dishonesty had not been necessary to its decision and would not, therefore, according to the rules of precedent as hitherto understood, have been binding on the Court of Appeal in this case …”
ADDED Tuesday 27th October 2020
