In this sense, judges have some discretion to improve and depart from the more archaic and/or orthodox principles established in previous precedents as in the case of R v. R [1991] (therefore prevailing over Miller) [1954]. One future tactic that judges appear to use to overcome the doctrine of judicial precedent would be distinctive. The doctrine of judicial precedent requires that these latest cases follow the decisions of previous cases, when the material facts are similar. So sometimes, because there are a lot of precedents, when judges decide cases, they tend to choose to follow a precedent that they feel more comfortable with. This shows that judges do indeed have some discretion. It was also argued that, in practice, judges appeared to have reached their own decisions or conclusions before seeking and relying on precedents in line with their decisions to support them. In the case of Merritt v Merritt [1970] CA, Balfour v Balfour [1919] was a first