Walau bagaimanapun, Penyata Pengamalan amat jarang diaplikasi House of Lords dan hanya digunakan sebagai pilihan terakhir. Dari tahun [] House of Lords menolak keputusannya yang terdahulu tidak lebih daripada 20 kali kerana bimbang penggunaannya secara berlebihan akan memperkenalkan ketidakpastian dalam undang-undang. Dalam R v Kansal (2002) umpamanya majoriti ahli House of Lords berpendapat bahawa R v Lambert (kes terdahulu) diputuskan secara tidak betul akan tetapi tidak mahu menolak keputusan terdahulu mereka.
===Aplikasi pada sistem perundangan Inggeris===
The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis is central to the English legal system. A precedent is a statement made of the law by a Judge in deciding a case. The doctrine, states that within the hierarchy of the English courts a decision by a higher court will be binding on those lower than it. This means that when judges try a case they will check to see if a similar case has come before a court previously, and if there was a precedent set by an equal or higher court, then the judge should follow that precedent. If there is a precedent set in a lower court, the judge does not have to follow it, but may consider it. The House of Lords however does not have to follow its own precedents .
Only the statements of law are binding, this is known as the reason for the decision or ratio decidendi, all other reasons are by the way or obiter dictum see Rondel v. Worsley (1969) 1 AC 191 . A precedent does not bind a court if it was found there was a lack of care in the original “Per Incuriam”, for example if a statutory provision or precedent had not been brought to the courts decision. If a court finds a material difference between cases then it can choose not to be bound by the precedent. Persuasive precedents are those that have been set by courts lower in the hierarchy, they may be persuasive but are not binding ,. Most importantly precedents can be overruled, by a subsequent decision by a higher court or Act of Parliament, Judicial ruling is retrospective, whereas Act’s of Parliament are always Prospective unless stated.
The last situation brings about the greatest problem of the precedent system, in that if a higher court overrules a precedent that is quite old, then it is very likely that many cases that have been decided upon that precedent will return to court. Therefore, it becomes increasingly unlikely that a precedent is overruled the older it is.
===Bagaimana para hakim menafsir duluan===