No. This is a common-law ruling about a common-law defense - it applies unless and until overruled by a higher court. The concourt could, if a case came before it, overrule and reverse this decision but until and unless that happens (and it won't because the ruling is absolutely correct) the precedent stands as the law of the land. That's how common-law works - when a judge rules that a common-law is no longer in sync with the values of society, or unconstitutional, or in contradiction with legislative law - then it ceases to be law and only a new court precedent can change that.
Even a small-town magistrate has that power (it was such a magistrate who made adultery no longer a punishable offense in the 1920s)

Creating a NEW common law offense works the same way but happens far less often as judges are naturally reticent about convicting somebody of an action they could not have known was a crime at the time they did it. So it requires a pretty egregious and obvious wrong.