R. V KANSAL

Regina v Kansal, 29 November 2001 (House of Lords). [2001] UKHL 62.

Regina v Kansal, 29 November 2001 (House of Lords). [2001] UKHL 62.

Part 01: Proportion decided in this case

The ratio decided in this case there is no doubt that the reasons that three of their Lordships gave for the decision is not so limited. Lord Slynn of Hadley said, would be dismissed in the broader arena that the appellant could not rely on Convention rights before a national court in respect of a conviction "before the 1998 Act came into force. I reached my decision by a different route, as I said, that the defendant, whose trial was held before the Act came into force could be based on an appeal after that was in force on an alleged violation of his Convention rights by the prosecution. But Lord Slynn line of reasoning was supported by the majority of their Lordships in this appeal. This view, which I call "the majority opinion," was the reason for the decision of the majority. There was therefore a majority of the opinion that it was appropriate to express the decision in this case in terms that did not extend to a violation of Convention rights by investigating or prosecuting authority.

Part 02

Practice Statement is a real abandonment of our claim to infallibility. . If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has distorted the law, the sooner the better corrected [4] However, the House of Lords has remained reluctant to ignore, in some cases, R v Kansala (2002), most members of the House approved a measure R v Lambert had been wrongly decided, but refused to depart from its previous decision. The Board took a different view on three issues that have been considered and answered in three recent decisions by the Board. In a statement to the contrary, Lord Hoffman drew attention to the evils that would result if the power to overrule previous decisions of the Privy Council exercised too easily. Worth quoting again two passages that Lord Hoffmann cited the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

On reconsideration I still think the decision was wrong and I see no reason to change what I said in my speech. But this does not mean that now must support a motion to reconsider. He said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in any decision with respect to previous and of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that every time we think that an earlier decision was wrong needs to be reversed.

Part 03

Lord Hope was of the opinion that we can get out of Lambert on the basis that we are here in a developing field of jurisprudence, and therefore the sooner the better corrected errors. Moreover, the Lambert decision was itself inconsistent with an earlier decision of the majority of the House of Lords in R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebilene [2000] 2 AC ...