Analysis of the Need for a Codified Constitution in the UK

This essay provides a detailed analysis of the debate surrounding the UK's uncodified constitution. It begins by defining a codified constitution and contrasts it with the UK's system, which relies on a mix of written and unwritten sources, including Acts of Parliament, common law, conventions, and EU law. The essay explores arguments for and against codification, considering the impact of EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Act 1998. It examines the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, discussing its implications in the context of the UK's legal system and the role of the courts. The essay concludes that a codified constitution is not required in the UK, due to the effectiveness of the current system, which adequately protects individual rights and provides a functional framework for governance. The essay also discusses the flexibility of the uncodified constitution, allowing it to adapt to changing political and social values. The essay also highlights the potential challenges of codification, such as inflexibility and the difficulty of amending a codified constitution.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Public Law
UK’s lack of a codified constitution
16-Nov-17
(Student Details: )

PUBLIC LAW 2
Introduction
A codified constitution refers to the basic or fundamental laws, through which a framework of
government is, established which is properly written down with the powers, duties and functions
of the government’s institutions and the duties and rights of the individuals are codified. A
leading example of a codified constitution is that of US’s constitution, where each and every
aspect is clearly defined1. When it comes to UK, the constitution is not codified in a single
document. Instead, the constitution of UK derives from a range of written and unwritten sources.
Included in these are accumulated conventions, EU law, common law, works of authority and
Acts of Parliament. Certain viewpoints have been raised recently regarding the constitution of
UK becoming more codified, as the elements are becoming written, but the fact remains that the
constitution of UK is still not codified, which has even raised the question on having a codified
constitution2. In the following parts, an analysis has been conducted to show if a codified
constitution is required in UK. In doing so, reference would be made to the impact of EU laws,
the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, 1998.
Need for codification?
A constitution is a set of rules which help in regulating the balance of powers between judiciary,
legislative, and executive branches, and also with regards to the citizens of the nation3. A
constitution has diversified scope and volume, where some areas are discussed briefly and others
1 Robert Blackburn, ‘Britain's unwritten constitution’ (British Library, 13 March 2015) <https://www.bl.uk/magna-
carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution> accessed 16 November 2017
2 Anthony Barnett, ‘Why Britain needs a written constitution’ (The Guardian, 30 November 2016)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/why-britain-needs-written-constitution> accessed 16
November 2017
3 Jack Beatson, ‘Reforming an unwritten constitution’ (2010) 48 Law Quarterly Review.

PUBLIC LAW 3
in detail, to such extent where these are drafted as fundamental rights as well. It is a well known
fact that the constitution of UK is unwritten, which often raises the view of the nation having no
constitution at all. In Rights of Man, Thomas Paine made an argument that the UK does not have
a constitution since the criteria for electing a highest Parliament cannot be described as a
constitution4. Though, this notion is very formalistic and also narrow and also proves to be
contradictory. This is because the nation has been governed in a successful manner without any
major unrest for over three hundred years. In absence of a proper mechanism for governing the
nation, this would not have been possible. So, in a broad manner, it can be stated that UK does
have a constitution. The situation can be best stated as UK having a constitution which is
partially uncodified and partially written5.
There are only a few nations in the world where there is a lack of codified constitution and UK is
amongst such nations. This is the reason why some have advocated for the constitution of the
nation to be properly codified. However, in making such contentions, one key point has been
ignored. This relates to the majority of constitution order of UK already having been written
down in forms of statutes6. A majority of details regarding the legislature, executive and their
relationship are regulated with the help of convention. These parts of the constitution of UK are
vulnerable to conflicting interpretation and this begs the need of prioritising in case a
codification of constitution of UK is opted for. One also cannot ignore the fact that codification
is not mandatory. The majority of uncodified portions have been covered in the Cabinet Manuals
and in other texts. Apart from this, some parts which remain uncodified are covered through
4 H. T. Dickinson, A Companion to Eighteenth-Century Britain (John Wiley & Sons 2008)
5 Michael Doherty, Public Law (Routledge 2016)
6 James Melton, Christine Stuart and Daniel Helen, ‘To codify or not to codify?’ (UCL, March 2015)
<https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/162.pdf> accessed 16 November 2017

PUBLIC LAW 4
conventions. Hence, on the day to day activities, these elements are not likely to have a major
impact7.
There has been a lot of literature which covers the lack of UK’s codified constitution. In many
accounts, the lack of codified constitution of UK is deemed as a substantial thing. There
continues to be divergence regarding the present agreements in UK being desirable and the need
to adopt a codified constitution. The continuity and antiquity of the constitution of UK is quite
frequently emphasized, in addition to its flexibility. There have been suggestions that the absence
of crucial instance at certain point in history provided through revolution, military defeat or
colonial independence, did help in explaining the reasons for not having a codified constitution.
This is in addition to the resilient and long endurance of the UK’s uncodified constitution. What
lies in the heart of the majority of interpretations is the parliamentary sovereignty, which
continues to be a controversial issue in context of its desirability and nature8.
Parliamentary sovereignty relates to the power of creating and unmaking the law, based on the
discretion of the parliament. In UK, the laws of EU apply due to its continued association with
EU, since Brexit has not yet been implemented. The nation’s Human Rights Act, 19989
integrates different provisions of European Convention on Human Rights10, i.e., ECHR in the
UK laws. There have been instances where claims have been made that through this act, the
parliamentary sovereignty is disrupted11. However, this is not true. For this, reference needs to be
made to section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which requires the legislation to be interpreted in a
7 James Melton, ‘Codification of the UK Constitution is not essential’ (UCL, 19 March 2015) <https://constitution-
unit.com/2015/03/19/codification-of-the-uk-constitution-is-not-essential/> accessed 16 November 2017
8 Andrew Blick, ‘Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies’ (King’s College London, February 2011)
<http://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/56954/CPCS%20Literature%20Review%20%284%29.pdf> accessed 16
November 2017
9 Human Rights Act 1998
10 European Convention on Human Rights
11 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and administrative law (12th edn, Taylor & Francis 2017)

PUBLIC LAW 5
manner where the rights are consistent with the ones covered under ECHR as far as possible12.
Where the same cannot be done, such interpretations have to be identified which are consistent
and this is to be done by the higher courts as they have this power through section 4 of this act,
with regards to issuance of statement of incompatibility13. So, as far as can be done, the statutes
are to be interpreted in alignment to ECHR.
A leading example of this is the case of R v A (No. 2)14 where the House of Lords decided upon
the level to which the rape shield was aligned with the right to fair trial of the Article 6 of ECHR.
Even when there are different meanings given to the statute by the court, the intent of the
Parliament remains. Hence, the Parliament continues to have the power of enacting the statute
which does not comply with the ECHR in clear terms and this would have to be supported by the
courts. In this regard, the court can issue a declaration of incompatibility based on section 4 of
the Human Rights Act15. In all, the courts cannot restrict an act of parliament resulting in the
parliamentary sovereignty remaining intact formally16. Thus, the parliamentary sovereignty
shows that even without a codified constitution, there are no issues surrounding the applicability
of laws, which could require the need for bringing out a codified constitution.
The debate regarding codification of British Constitution has continued since a long time.
Though, time and again, the reforms are initiated for bringing out a codified constitution. The
constitution of UK is based on separation of and yet the parliament has been composed in such a
manner where this principle is not upheld. This is because the majority of ministers are elected
party’s members which results in the executive becoming a part of the legislature, which is the
12 Human Rights Act 1998, s3
13 Human Rights Act 1998, s4
14 [2002] I AC 45
15 Human Rights Act 1998, s4
16 Steve Foster, Concentrate Questions and Answers Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Oxford University Press
2016)

PUBLIC LAW 6
supreme source of lawmaking in the nation. Hence, the government can modify the constitution
resulting in concentration of powers in their hands. As a result of this, there is a need raised for
codification of constitution of UK so that Parliament can be abolished in order to stop the same
from becoming the highest source of law to be under executive’s control. With the introduction
of a written constitution, the control of executive over the legislative would not result in changes
in constitution17.
It has also been suggested that through a codified constitution, and by deeming it as an
entrenched document as the highest source of law instead of Parliament and a stability can be
brought in the constitution which cannot be amended easily. Through codification, a key step
would be taken towards flexibility. The UK’s constitution is recognized for flexibility which is
crucial for making certain that the legal framework constitution operates as per the constitutional
values of the period. So, based on the social and political situations, the changes can be allowed
to be made in the constitution. An absence of codified constitution essentially means that UK
does not require formulating laws or statements, as doing the same would render the same
redundant with political changes. An example of this can be seen in the constitution drafted in
1830, where declaration were included regarding the voting rights and House of Lords’ powers,
which would have been made redundant with the Great Reform Act, 1832. In addition to this, the
flexibility of the constitution allows uncomplicated changes and development in constitution
even when the legal aspects are not affected. This too can be elucidated with the help of an
example of Sewel Conventions, 1999’s creation. This convention restricted the Parliament from
legislating on the issues which were related to Scottish Parliament without getting consent before
doing do. Hence, the constitution of UK is quite complex, which evolves like a living organism
17 Isabella Reynoso, ‘Should Britain Adopt a Written Constitution?’ (1 January 2014) <https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/kslr/?
p=114> accessed 16 November 2017

PUBLIC LAW 7
and has characteristics of flexibility which allows it to get an edge in society owing to the
possibility of evolving with the present political and societal values18.
Even with presence of such points, in the view of the writer, the codification of UK’s
constitution is not required. This is stemmed from the common saying of ‘if it isn’t broken, don’t
fix it’. The nation has been developing constantly and that too in a peaceful manner. It does not
matter if there had been gradual development of constitution resulting in peaceful development
or that there is a lack of revolution which has diminished the need for codification19. Though, it
can be stated with certainty that the present state of constitutional affairs have been working in
an efficient manner since last three hundred years. If changes are brought just for the sake of it, it
would be unreasonable. Also, one cannot guarantee that a codified constitution would be
successful. If the supremacy is given to a codified constitution, it would be difficult to change
and would be less flexible. A lot of time and effort would have to be spent for amending the
codified constitution, which could prove difficult in urgent situations20. The advantages of having
an uncodified constitution were highlighted in the aftermaths of Hungerford massacre in 1987,
after that the Dunblane massacre in 1996. In these situations, acts had been passed by the
Parliament which included restricting and even complete banning of possession of fireworks in
UK. An attempt at making snapshot of constitution for codifying it would also prove to be a
momentous task, which cannot be guaranteed to be carried out with accuracy21. If codification of
constitution is attempted at the present time, it would garner a lot of public and media interest,
which would result in legal knowledge of the citizens being enhanced. However, using this
18 Ibid
19 Philip Booth, Towards a Liberal Utopia? (Bloomsbury Publishing USA 2006)
20 Philip Lynch, Paul Fairclough and Toby Cooper, Public Law (5th edn, Hachette UK 2017)
21 Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, Public Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2017)

PUBLIC LAW 8
option for increasing citizen awareness is dangerous and a misconceived notion. Instead, steps
should be taken at educating them through internet and TV.
Conclusion
Thus, from the discussion carried on the previous parts, it can be concluded that a codified
constitution is not required in UK. This is due to the success of the system which has already
been implemented. In this system, the purpose for which constitution is codified, i.e., for forming
laws, is already fulfilled by Parliament. Also, the matters are covered through EU laws,
conventions, statutes and the like on different matters. When it comes to issue of parliamentary
sovereignty, the interplay of ECHR and the Human Rights Act help in clarifying the issues raised
through the help of the court. Thus, even when there is no codification of UK’s constitution, a
proper system is already followed, where the rights of the individuals are properly protected
through the governing acts and in matter of clash, the court interprets the provisions to bring
clarity and at the same time, the Parliament continues to hold the supreme position as a law
making body. Even though this non codification results in merging of the executive and the
legislative branches of the government, the history of UK is evidence enough of the success of a
non-codified constitution.

PUBLIC LAW 9
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Cases
R v A (No. 2) [2002] I AC 45
Statutes and statutory instruments
Human Rights Act, 1998
EU legislation and cases
European Convention on Human Rights
Secondary Sources
Books
Barnett H, Constitutional and administrative law (12th edn, Taylor & Francis 2017)
Booth P, Towards a Liberal Utopia? (Bloomsbury Publishing USA 2006)
Dickinson HT, A Companion to Eighteenth-Century Britain (John Wiley & Sons 2008)
Doherty M, Public Law (Routledge 2016)
Elliott M, and Thomas R, Public Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2017)
Foster S, Concentrate Questions and Answers Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Oxford
University Press 2016)

PUBLIC LAW 10
Lynch P, Fairclough P, and Cooper T, Public Law (5th edn, Hachette UK 2017)
Journal articles
Beatson J, ‘Reforming an unwritten constitution’ (2010) 48 Law Quarterly Review.
Websites and blogs
Barnett A, ‘Why Britain needs a written constitution’ (The Guardian, 30 November 2016)
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/why-britain-needs-written-
constitution> accessed 16 November 2017
Blackburn R, ‘Britain's unwritten constitution’ (British Library, 13 March 2015)
<https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution> accessed 16 November
2017
Blick A, ‘Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies’ (King’s College London, February
2011) <http://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/56954/CPCS%20Literature%20Review
%20%284%29.pdf> accessed 16 November 2017
Melton J, ‘Codification of the UK Constitution is not essential’ (UCL, 19 March 2015)
<https://constitution-unit.com/2015/03/19/codification-of-the-uk-constitution-is-not-essential/>
accessed 16 November 2017
Melton J, Stuart C, and Helen D, ‘To codify or not to codify?’ (UCL, March 2015)
<https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/162.pdf> accessed
16 November 2017

PUBLIC LAW 11
Reynoso I, ‘Should Britain Adopt a Written Constitution?’ (1 January 2014)
<https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/kslr/?p=114> accessed 16 November 2017