The statement above seem to suggest that although the Human Rights Act has brought some change

to the ancient old doctrine of judicial precedent ,the underlying features of the doctrine has remain untouched .Before we go any further to discuss about the how much and whether or not has the Human Rights Act 1998 had its impact on the doctrine of stare decisis,it is vital to first to know what is the ancient old doctrine about and how and when did the Human Rights Act 1998 came into play in the English Law. The English law is said to be a very unique one if to be to the compared to the other law systems in the world. This can be said as the English law allows the judges to play such an important role in its system. The common law itself is made from case laws or also known as judge made law. The doctrine of precedent that is being followed by the English judges for centuries is the main element that governs the functioning ,efficiency and effectiveness of the entire common law system .The common law has developed itself by broadening down from precedent to precedent. But recently there have been many questions and debates about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the doctrine of judicial precedent and the courts since it became law. But what is judicial precedent? The doctrine simply means a judgement of a court of law acted as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts or a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. According Blacks law dictionary, defines precedent as a rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as and a source for future decision makings. This is based on the Latin

maxim stare decisis et non queta which means to stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established. This eventually supports the idea of fairness and justice and provides a certain degree of certainty in the law. The next issue that we will be discussing is the historical background of the Human Rights Act 1998(HRA) and how did come into existence. The historical background to the Convention is very well known .It sets out certain basic and fundamental rights which could be said to reflect generally of what human beings could or should expect by way of minimum rights in a civilised society. Although significantly a product of British thinking and draftsmanship, the convention was not incorporated into the laws of United Kingdom until the 2nd October 2000. As such it could not be said to be an instrument of the modern time. Even before the incorporation conventions was referred to from time to time in cases in United Kingdom. One of the most significant and commonly held view was of Lord Denning MR in R v Chief Immigration Officer ,Heathrow Airport ex parte Bibi(1976)WLR 979 at 985B : The convention is drafted in a style very different from the way in which we are used to in legislation. It contains wide general statements of principle. They are apt to lead to much difficulty in application because they give rise to much uncertainty. They are not the sort of thing that we can easily digest .Article 8 is an example .It is so wide as it is incapable of actual practical application. So it is much better for us to stick to our own statutes and principles, and only look into the convention for guidance in case of doubt . After the incorporation of the Convention of Human Rights into the domestic laws of United Kingdom ,which is the Human Rights Act 1998(HRA),judges had to take into account decisions from Strasbourg by

the European Court Of Human Rights. This was rather very different from the obligation of English judges to follow precedents to which the judges were more accustomed. It can be said that the Human Rights Act 1998 has effectively brought to judicial practice new principle that are having significant on its form .Although judges are still working as much as they can within the broad terms of the doctrine of precedent,in certain areas ,the courts have seized the chance to create new law and re shape their relationship with Parliament. Kay and others v Lambeth London Borough Council (2006)UKHL 10 concerned about Article 8 of the convention and to the extent to which it could be used to defeat a local authoritys right to possession of property. The Supreme Court (previously known as House of Lords ) held that that as the defendants in the case had no rights under the domestic law ,they could not make a claim against the local authority under Article 8. The Supreme Court ruled that whilst the domestic courts were not bound to follow the decisions of the European Court Of Human Rights (herein after referred to as ECHR) ,they did have to give cognisance to European jurisprudence in their decisions. However ,this principle was itself subordinate to the fundamental adherence to the doctrine of precedent.It would only be in extreme cases that the Court Of Appeal could overrule a decision of the Supreme Court. Lord Bingham offered some important guidelines that would help the courts to consider when it could depart from the Supreme Court , and follow a case of the ECHR. The Strasbourg case would have to been decided after the domestic case, the case would have to put forward a clear interpretation of both Convention law and United Kingdom law.There is incompability between domestic and Convention law and the domestic

law was not based on an Act of Parliament.In these instances,the correct course of action would be to look to 6(2) of the Human Rights Act(1998) So the Question that lingers now is : What do we make of this principles that were established? The guiding concern of the Supreme Court is to establish a constructive dialogue between the domestic courts and Strasbourg .This concerns is clearly based on fundamental principles of precedent and the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.Lord Binghams guidelines suggest that the instances when the Court Of Appeal could depart from a precedent of the Supreme Court are thus rare ,applying only in very limited circumstances .In other words ,a a mere tension or possible inconsistency would not justify the overturning precedent.The lower courts and even the different Law Lords within the appellate courts,had taken various views on the issue of compatibility. The law would be in a chaotic and in an uncertain state if the difference of opinion in the lower courts justified their departure from the long established doctrine of precedent. Thus ,the case of Kay and others v Lambeth London Borough Council (2006) can be read as the re-assertation of the doctrine of judicial precedent in the wake of the Human Rights Act ,in the very same way in which the Supreme Court in Davis reasserted conventional doctrine against Lord Dennings creative heresies. However , the way forward proposed by Lord Bingham is also consistent with the wide Strasbourg jurisprudence, which allows a margin of appreciation to the domestic courts in interpreting Convention rights.This places the primary responsibility on domestic courts as the correct forums of the determination of how European Human Rights law is to apply in a domestic context.

Lord Binghams guidelines can be seen to relate to the Court of Appeals decision in D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust (2004).In this case, it was held that a Supreme Court decision ,X(minors) v Bedfordshire County Council 1995 was inconsistent with the Human Rights Act.The Supreme Court agreed with the argument of the Court Of Appeal ,accepting that the jurisdiction for the ruling in the case could no longer stand .However ,there were other important factors.X had been been decided before Human Rights Act ,the case had made no reference to the Convention and the plaintiff in the case later were successful in pleading a b reach under Article 3 in the European Court Of Human Rights and obtain significant damages. Lord Bingham notes that Such a course is not permissible save where the facts are of that extreme character. This combination of factors allows Lord Bingham to present this case as exceptional ,and thus entirely coherent with his guidelines. Other cases show the courts taking a far more creative approach to human rights.An example of these is the case of Dougles v Hello (2001).The court showed that it was willing to protect the privacy of celebrities against journalists using particularly intrusive methods of photography.According to Sedley LJs arguments ,the courts should recognise a right to privacy.He says that the common law and equity have developed slowly and by uneven degrees.Moreover ,they have tended to be reactive .Arguably ,the time has come for the articulation of discrete principle of law that relates to protection of privacy.Why is this? The reasons are twofold .First ,equity and the common law are today in a position to respond to an increasingly invasive social environment by affirming that everybody has a right to some private space.Secondly ,and in any event ,the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts of this

country(united kingdom)to give appropriate effect to the right to respect for private and family set out in Article 8 of the European Conventions on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.(ibid 997) So, as far as in the case of Douglas ,the court felt it was now necessary to develop a positive institutional obligation to respect privacy .Clearly this is a very bold decision,and the courts had been struggling with the issue of privacy for a very long period of time prior to this case. What Douglas does not suggest is that ,in all areas of law ,the courts will take upon themselves the obligation to extend both the common law and the range of the Human Rights to cover private parties.Nevertheless ,Douglas seem to suggest that the courts will take seriously the need ,in certain circumstances or situations to makesure that a limited definition of public authority does not lead to rights being abused. So can it be said that the impact of Human Rights Act 1998 is that it has brought much changes to the doctrine of precedent?does the act seem to reinvent both the doctrine and judicial precedent ? Harris suggested that the principle of overruling needs to be reconsidered.He argues that the present practice of allowing wrong precedents to stand stresses the value of certainty at the cost of the quality of justice .he argues that the better approach would be for the final appellate court to depart from its long standing precedent after systematically weighing up all the competing considerations. Wadham et al,The Human Rights Act 1998 (Oxford:Blackstone Press ,2003)has also argued that the courts have a duty to develop the common law in line with the Convention Rights by virtue of 6(3). As a whole ,from my point view as a common law student,the Human Rights Act has and will continue to have its impact on the golden

doctrine of judicial precedent in years to come .However the very feature of the doctrine ,the respect given to the decisions by the superior courts which is actually the attitude of the judges to stand by decisions of the superior courts remains strong and untouched.