Judging a UK written constitution?
14 May 2014 03:16 PM
The Political and
Constitutional Reform Committee publishes report on the constitutional role of
the judiciary if there were a codified constitution. The report contributes to
the Committee’s wider work on codifying, or not codifying the UK’s
constitution.
Key points in the report
include:
- Should the UK move towards a
codified constitution, one way of addressing the question of what powers the
judiciary should have if they held a piece of legislation to be
unconstitutional, would be to introduce the concept of a “declaration of
unconstitutionality”. This could work in the same way as the
declaration of incompatibility used under section 4 of the Human Rights Act
1998 for situations in which UK legislation is held to be incompatible with the
European Convention on Human Rights.
- If the UK were to adopt a
codified constitution, there would be no need for a separate constitutional
court. The Supreme Court could adjudicate on constitutional
matters.
- It would be understandable if
the judiciary were unwilling to comment on the contents of a codified
constitution, but it would be important to find a way of hearing their views on
the implications of the proposals once the general structure of the
constitution had been agreed. If necessary, some of the discussion could
take place under Chatham House rules. Retired members of the judiciary
would also be likely to feel freer to offer their opinions than those still
serving as judges.
Chair's
comments
The Chair of the Committee,
Graham Allen MP, said:
“This report is part of
the Committee’s ongoing work on a codified constitution for the UK.
Our report welcomes the fact that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 enshrined
judicial independence in law and the greater separation of powers between the
judiciary, the executive and the legislature that the Act
brought.”
He added “The Committee
expects to publish the results of its wider inquiry into codifying, or not
codifying, the UK’s constitution in the summer.”