Extract 1 was written by Sinonaidh Douglas-Scott, a law professor, for the Constitution Unit in 2020. Her perspective is pro-codification because she believes the UK’s uncodified system is no longer adequate to handle modern crises like Brexit. Her purpose is to provide an academic argument for reform.

Prospect Current affairs publication - job is to inform people Author was a Conservative MSP and Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow Job is likely to persuade people/spread his opinion

Extract 1 was written by Adam Tomkins, a former Conservative MSP and a Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow. His perspective is anti-codification because he believes the UK’s uncodified system is already dynamic and fair and that changing it to a codified system would increase the level of pressure on the courts and make it less effective. His purpose is to spread his opinion within a magazine used to inform people.

forgot to mention the magazine name ‘Prospect’ forgot to mention writing date forgot to mention a quote

Difference - example 1 does not consider the impact on courts, example 2 does Similarity - Britain has unresolved internal tensions, difference is how they see the constitution as fit Difference - example 1 ‘rights are not protected’, example 2 ‘rights are protected’

Sentence 1 - point + quote Sentence 2 - explanation + definition + impact Bonus knowledge used - definitions, impact Sentence 3 - practical example (I.e., conservatives + reform want to repeal the human rights act) Sentence 3 - AO3 - evaluation, judgement JUDGMENT LINKS BACK TO QUESTION

POINT - Codified constitutions make judges more powerful However, Extract 2 warns that a codified constitution would “dramatically increase the role of the courts, passing power from the elected to the unelected”. This is because the courts, in a codified constitution, determine the interpretation of the constitution, therefore giving more power to the judges. A real-life example of this would be the US case against Bobby Seale in which he was forced to proceed without his lawyer, and repeatedly denied his constitutional right to counsel. This would result in the UK Parliament becoming weaker as the UK would no longer be a Parliamentary Sovereignty

This shows a clear difference between the extracts: while Extract 1 sees the courts as a …, Extract 2 sees them as a …

Another real-life example would have been the right to arms in the US