Provide a 6 pages analysis while answering the following question: Critically assess whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use of Practice Statement 1966 should be more racial than that of th

Provide a 6 pages analysis while answering the following question: Critically assess whether the UK Supreme Court's approach to the use of Practice Statement 1966 should be more racial than that of the House of Lords, in order to achieve reform of the law. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. As the process of law development is one which is evolving continuously, scholars have discussed how the practice statement of 1966 can be used more radically. This study critically assesses whether the UK Supreme Courts approach to the use of the Practice Statement 1966 should be more radical than that of the House of Lords, in order to achieve reform of the law.

Prior to understanding the various scenarios where the Practice Statement has been used, it is necessary to also understand certain terms that are used commonly with regard to it. The first one is rules of precedent. Precedent is the concept that any rule that has been established in an earlier case should be adhered to in cases that are similar, so that similar cases should be given similar outcomes (Garner, 2009). It also means that inferior courts should stand by the decisions that have been made in a superior court. The other important terms include ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. Ratio decident translates to reason for the decision and obiter dictum translates to statements made by the way or in passing. These are two parts of a ruling made by the judge (Garner, 2009). Ratio Decidendi explains laws based on which any particular judgment has been made. During the process of judgment delivery, the judge is bound to explain the law and reason based on which he or she arrived at the particular ruling. These are included in the law report and hence, it forms the basis of precedent. Obiter dicta, which are the statements that have been passed by the way and hence they are not binding (Garner, 2009). For example, the discussion or speculations that are made by a judge on how his or her decision would change if the situations had been different fall under obiter dictum. While Obiter dictum is not binding, it is often used as a reference or persuasive agent in future cases.