whether the doctrine of precedent allows judges flexibility in developing the law

The principle reasons for the existence for the doctrine of precedent is to create continuity, fairness and certainty in decision. However, one would be forgiven for believing that because of this principle of stare decisis, the law is rigid and unchanging. There exist intrinsic 'fail-safes' to ensure a natural evolution of law in reaction to the development of society.
Firstly, precedents set by courts may actually be contradicted or overruled by a superior court. For example a decision made by the High Court may be overruled by the House of Lords or by the Court of Appeal. This is illustrated by the case C (a minor) v DPP: A 12-year-old boy appealed against his conviction for interfering with motorcycles, arguing that the prosecution had not proved mischievous discretion. Abolishing the presumption of doli incapax for children between 10 and 14, Mann LJ said it was clear on authority that the Divisional Court had power to depart from its own previous decisions. The House of Lords r...