Nevertheless, it can be argued that
judges can still be flexible, and use case law creatively as it is mentioned in the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944) and the interpretation of law needs to be more creative to meet the needs of a changing society, taking in account that case law can make changes much
faster than the Parliament. An example of this change is the Practice Statement 1966 when the Lord Chancellor released claiming that the House of Lords/Supreme Court was no longer bound by its past judgments.
Main elements of the English legal system and sources of law are interacting with each other, and there will always be development. As for the judicial precedent giving too much opportunity for judge law-making, the supremacy of Parliament should be kept in mind, as the laws and statutes will be interpreted in accordance with the wishes of Parliament.
Judicial precedent has been at the core of the English legal system and the House of Lords affirmed the value of the compliance to precedent, which is mentioned in the case of Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council [2006].35 But, nevertheless, departure from the doctrine of stare decisis is also welcomed, as for the benefits of law development from the cases discussed and to make sure that the decisions made are just - avoiding human error. Judges
play a role in lawmaking through judicial precedent. Where a clear Act is needed for reform, this will be put forward. An example of this is that prior to R v R 199036, rape was not illegal within marriage. If there is an issue the Law commision may review the stare decisis, for the better outcome of judicial administration. The duties of the Law Commission are set out in
the Law Commission Act 2005. Changes tend to be made when the need for change is recognised.
…
