Our Constitution Uk

A Constitution is a collection of rules that ensures a country is running efficiently. It guarantees that the government are governing correctly and that the rights of individual citizens are being protected. Constitutions can be found in different forms. They can be written or unwritten, rigid or flexible, federal or unitary in structure. Our UK constitution is unwritten however it possesses strong core constitutional principles, such as parliamentary supremacy, a responsible government, the rule of law and the separation of powers. It also has many key characteristics that shape it.
As mentioned in Hilaire Barnett 's statement, the UK constitution is largely unwritten. Unlike the USA we do not have a document that states the system in which our country is run. Our constitution is like a jigsaw, as we have a number of sources that shape and form it. One of the main sources is legislation, which can be found in the forms of Acts of Parliament (AOP are the highest form of law) or delegated legislation. These are all written, hence when Hilaire Barnett mentioned how our constitution is largely unwritten, she is accurate. Legislation has been created that possess particular constitutional significance. An example of this would be the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This was one of the main pieces of legislation regarding our constitution. It bought about a greater separation of power which in turn had a huge effect on our constitution.
One of the key characteristic of our constitution is our flexibility, with a written constitution it is very difficult for laws to be passed. In the UK all our Acts of Parliament can be amended or repealed if need be. Another example of our flexibility are conventions. These are non-legal sources of law otherwise known as rules. Sir Ivor Jennings Wrote (The Law and the Constitution, 5th edition, 1959) 'they (conventions) make the legal constitution work they keep it in touch with the growth of ideas. ‘ Conventions are seen as good as they are fast however some people tend to disagree with them, as they may not have gone through the correct legislative process and may lack scrutiny. The case of Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape 1976 is an example where the court questioned and considered the enforcement of conventions. This case was regarding whether the government had power to stop the publication of the diary of a former cabinet minister named Richard Crossman. The conclusion was that the conventions are recognised however are not legally enforceable.
Another key characteristic of our constitution is that we are unitary in structure. This means that parliament is the responsible government and is central and supreme to our law making. Parliamentary supremacy ensures that parliament are the executive law makers. Parliament have delegated bodies to write legislation however they are all bound by Acts of Parliament.
The UK constitution has a separation of powers. There are three main powers, the first being the legislators. These are the people who create our general rules. in the UK they are known as parliament. The second power is the Executive, who govern according to the laws. This is Her Majesty’s government. The third and last power is the judiciary who ensure the law is being adhered to and interpret cases based on legislation parliament have created.
The last characteristic I will be discussing is the monarchy. Although the Queen does not often contradict what parliament do, she does ultimately have the power to stop any Act of Parliament. The royal family does play a big part as it is one of the main sources of our constitution.
Another source of the UK constitution is the judiciary. In the past cases would be ruled by the application of common law. Nowadays the focus has changed to interpreting legislation. The judiciary also have the power of judicial review where they can challenge an executive action. Therefore the courts have been able to develop the UK constitution, by the development of the common law and judicial review.
Although the judiciary do have power, parliament is above them as they are the main source in our constitution, and can create legislation to prevent the courts from acting a certain way. Parliament could also decide the direction the judiciary is heading in a certain subject is noteworthy and they may pass legislation supporting the judge’s decision.
To conclude, as Hilaire Barnett mentioned, the UK Constitution is definitely largely unwritten. We do not possess a document that states what our constitution is. Our constitution is flexible in nature as it gives us room to amend any broken laws and to pass new laws. The constitution is also unitary in structure as we have a responsible government that are supreme in our law making. In terms of separated powers, we do possess separate powers however they work with each other to ensure our constitution is working correctly and efficiently. Overall Hilaire Barnett’s statement seems to be correct.

Question 2:
Our society is based on our constitutional principles. One of the principles in the Rule of Law which is the idea that all laws and government actions conform to principles. There is also the principle of equal application of the law, which means everyone, even those in power are not above the law but rather equal before the law. Another core constitutional principle is the concept that we are unitary in structure. Meaning that parliament is the responsible government and is central and supreme to our law making. The main constitutional principle is parliamentary supremacy and this is the main principle I will be discussing in this question.
Although parliament is the supreme law making body, there are certain limitations to their power. Parliament has the right to create any laws at any given time and this legislation cannot be overridden by any other body. This is known as parliamentary supremacy and is a core constitutional principle. However there is a restriction which is that, Parliament 'cannot bind itself or its successors ' (Dicey, 1959). To remain supreme, Parliament must be able to alter or change any of its Acts, either by express or implied repeal. Express repeal meaning Parliament gives a statement that the previous Act is repealed. Implied repeal is where there is a conflict between two Acts, therefore the court will apply the later Act. Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health 1934, is a good example of implied repeal, where the earlier Act – Acquisition of Land Act 1919 was in question with the Housing Act 1925 which was later enacted in regards to terms of compensation. Maugham LJ stated that it was impossible for the legislature to bind itself in terms of future legislation and if Parliament 'chooses to make it perfectly plain that the previous one is being to some extent repealed, that must have effect ' (Dicey 1959). Essentially it must have been Parliament 's wish to repeal the earlier Act by implementing the later Act.
The enrolled bill rule is a principle of judicial interpretation which means that once an Act has come into Law with royal assent it is presumed that the correct parliamentary procedure was adhered to with that Act. An example of this rule would be in the case of Pickin v British Railways Board 1974. Where there was 2 Acts in question and the claimant declared that the earlier Act was ineffective on the grounds that parliament had been misled by the railway board. Mr Pickin’s claim was rejected on the grounds that the court is not entitled to disregard a provision an Act of Parliament had created.
In regards to Ed’s case, the court is not entitled to decide whether parliament was correct in passing a new Act. When there is a conflict between two Acts, implied repeal is used and this is what happened in Ed’s case. The court saw the dispute between both Acts and applied the later Act assuming that it had gone through the correct legislative process. However we see here that there is a breach in this process, Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2010 clearly states that a referendum is needed for a bill to amend or repeal this Act.
Although parliament is unable to bind itself it does occasionally use provisions to ensure the efficiency of our constitution. There is a concept of manner and form, which gives parliament its freedom to include provisions in an Act. An example of manner and form is the case of Attorney General for New South Wales v Trethowan 1932. Where a statutory provision required a referendum for its repeal. The case was brought to the courts who prevented the bill from going for royal assent without a referendum. Although it is different due to the fact that this case is Australian, it seems parliament can bind itself and its successors by the manner and form of future enactments. Heuston and Marshall agree that parliament can in essence bind itself by manner and form, however Hart is sceptical and states it is a possible version of supremacy however is not the UK’s accepted view (Allen and Thompson p62-64).
The Trethowan case is similar to Ed’s case. The statutory provision in Ed’s case also required a referendum for the Act to be amended or repealed. When the Anti-Terrorism Act was bought into law in 2012, a referendum was no held. Therefore Ed would be able to argue that the Criminal Justice Act 2010 is the correct Act and he should be given a trial with a judge and jury, however parliament is still the supreme and do have the power to repeal and amend any Act they see fit. However following the Trethowan case, the courts prevented the bill from going for royal assent as a referendum was not made, if Ed’s case was brought to court there may be a similar outcome due to the fact that no referendum was made in his case either, in which case his appeal would be successful and he would be judged in front of a judge and a jury.

Word count: 1663
Acts:
* Constitutional Reform Act 2005 * The Housing Act 1925 * Acquisition of Land Act 1919 Cases * Pickin v British Railways Board 1974. * Attorney-General v Jonathan cape 1976 * Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health1934 * Attorney General for New South Wales v Trethowan 1932 References: * Allen and Thompson p62-64 * The Law and the Constitution, 5th edition, Dicey 1959 * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 1. Fundamental Values, Constitutions and core Constitutional Principles. Milton Keynes. The Open University. * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 2. The Sources of the UK Constitution. Milton Keynes. The Open University. * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 3+4. Parliamentary Supremacy. Milton Keynes. The Open University.

References: * Allen and Thompson p62-64 * The Law and the Constitution, 5th edition, Dicey 1959 * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 1. Fundamental Values, Constitutions and core Constitutional Principles. Milton Keynes. The Open University. * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 2. The Sources of the UK Constitution. Milton Keynes. The Open University. * The Open University, W201, Law: The Individual and the State, Unit 3+4. Parliamentary Supremacy. Milton Keynes. The Open University.