Only one year later in R v Shivpuri (1986)[3] Lord Bridge (a member of the erroneous majority in Anderton) acknowledged the error and said "the Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility.
[7][8] This is the text of the Practice Statement: Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases.
Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law.
In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlement of property, and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law.
In Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark[9] Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court: 25.