4 ms·
Britain doesn't have a constitution. As the article alludes to, when Acts of Parliament clash with semi-constitutional items like international treaties, human
by jsmith99 6y ago
Britain doesn't have a constitution. As the article alludes to, when Acts of Parliament clash with semi-constitutional items like international treaties, human rights laws, or ancient traditions, the courts will attempt to construe the law as Parliament not deliberately intending to override the standard. However, if Parliament explicitly states their intention, they can override anything.
E.g.
Lord Hoffmann in ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, at p.131:
"Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. ... The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document."
- goodcanadian 6y agoBritain doesn't have a constitution. Yes, it does. It is unwritten and fuzzy, but Britain definitely has a constitution or at least "constitutional principles" as mentioned in the quote you provided: " . . . In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document." While it may technically be possible under certain circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of legislation could be crafted that would successfully override the arguments made here.
- beojan 6y ago> While it may technically be possible under certain circumstances, I find it very hard to image how a piece of legislation could be crafted that would successfully override the arguments made here. Something along the lines of "The issuance of general warrants is expressly permitted," perhaps? The principles of constitutionality may be similar, but the amendment process isn't, it simply requires an Act of Parliament.
- goodcanadian 6y agoI doubt that a court would find that sufficient; it seems overly broad and therefore ambiguous, but hey, I'm not a lawyer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago"Notwithstanding the objections to their issuance by <court> on <date> and <court> on <data>, and stated explicitly so as to satisfy the reasoning of said courts, the issuance of general warrants is intended by Parliament and shall henceforth be expressly permitted"
- pmyteh 6y agoParliament overruling the decision about warrant specificity is quite straightforward. The wording in the Act was somewhat ambiguous about how much specificity was required, so the court ruled that it be interpreted tightly in accordance with the principle of legality. Parliament adding a simple 'The warrant may apply to broad classes of activity and to persons not currently known to the Secretary of State' would probably be enough for that - in principle it just needs to be unambiguous that that is what Parliament intends to do. The clause attempting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, on the other hand, would require something a lot more vigorous. I don't know whether a clause like yours would be sufficient, but if judges can find a way around it they probably will.
- 6y ago
- tomatocracy 6y agoJust to nitpick - the UK constitution is uncodified (ie not in a single document called a constitution) and perhaps in part unwritten but most (perhaps all) of it is written down in the various constitutional statutes and judgements.
- goodcanadian 6y agoFair point.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> Britain doesn't have a constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin... Also try reading 'The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction' by Martin Loughlin.