I like this. Re "Caldwell recklessness" - it was widely thought that the House of Lords got this wrong. The Law Commission considered criminal damage to property and must have intended reckless to mean in the Cunningham sense. However, the House of Lords decided differently - (maily Lord Diplock). Faced with a House of Lords decision, trial judges and magistrates had to apply the law but often at the risk of some injustice.I assume that the 1966 Practice Direction has now gone into history since it was only necessary because the House of Lords considered itself bound by its own previous decisions. The new Supreme Court would not, I assume, ever consider itself bound by its own previous. See also Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s41(3) in relation to "devolution jurisdictrion".
Interesting ObiterJ - and hence R v R and G!Good question raised re the Practice Statement and the CRA - however our A level students have until next year to adjust their answers. They're fine sticking with the Practice Statement for now!
Please keep comments appropriate and sensible! Thanks.