Case Examples

• Prisoners right to vote Shows that rights are not adequately protected
• Birmingham council case, right to vote Shows that rights are adequately protected
• Tony Blair - Iraq War Shows that the Prime Minister is too powerful
  • Margaret Thatcher - Poll Tax
  • Links back to separation of powers, limited government
• Gina Miller case Shows that unelected judges can become too powerful*
  • Links back to the idea of legitimacy
• Devolved assemblies and parliament Shows that the Constitution is unclear to citizens
• Gun laws and Dunblane vs. US and mass shootings Shows that the constitution is flexible
  • Links back to the idea that the UK Constitution is able to adapt to modern day needs
  • Links back to the idea that rights are based on culture, not just laws (within the UK)
• Police courts and sentencing act Shows that rights are not entrenched
  • Links back to the idea that the constitution lacks entrenchment and certainty

*might be wrong

Warning

AI assisted notes. These have been verified as accurate.

Belmarsh Case (2004)

• Case: A v Secretary of State for the Home Department
• Based on Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
• Allowed indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects
• Applied only to foreign nationals
• Many suspects held in Belmarsh prison
• Government justified law using national security after 9/11

Judgment

• House of Lords ruled law incompatible with the ECHR
• Breached Article 5 – right to liberty
• Also breached Article 14 – discrimination
• Courts issued a Declaration of Incompatibility under the Human Rights Act

Outcome

• Parliament replaced law with control orders (Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005)
• Shows courts cannot strike down legislation

Prisoner Voting Case

• Case: Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)
• Hirst serving life sentence for manslaughter
• Challenged Representation of the People Act 1983
• Act imposed blanket ban on prisoner voting

Argument

• Ban violated Article 3 Protocol 1 – right to free elections

Judgment

• European Court of Human Rights ruled the ban unlawful
• Blanket ban considered disproportionate

Outcome

• UK slow to change the law
• Demonstrates tension between parliamentary sovereignty and human rights law

Birmingham Council Case (2025)

• Case: R (YVR) v Birmingham City Council
• Concerned Birmingham City Council’s adult social care charging policy
• Policy required disabled people receiving care services to pay the maximum charges allowed by law
• Claimant (YVR) was severely disabled and unable to work
• Argued the policy treated severely disabled people who cannot work less favourably than disabled people who can work

Argument

• Policy violated Article 14 ECHR – prohibition of discrimination
• Read together with Article 1 Protocol 1 – protection of property
• Claimant argued the charges unfairly reduced income needed for daily living

Judgment

• Court accepted the policy created differential treatment against severely disabled people unable to work
• This counted as *discrimination under Article 14
• However, the court held the discrimination was justified

Outcome

• Policy allowed to remain in force
• Court accepted the council faced serious financial pressures
• Shows that interference with rights under the ECHR can be lawful if justified and proportionate

Why do countries have codified constitutions?

Most countries have codified constitutions from a war in which government is then rebuilt.

• US - Battle of Independence
• France - French Revolution
• Germany - Collapse of the Berlin Wall (used to unify Germany), after WW1, after WW2

The UK Government has not collapsed in the last ~1,000 years. The closest to this was the English Civil War which Parliament won (hence Parliament being at the top of law).

This has also been shown by Parliament previously selecting who was the monarch, i.e., William the Silent (Orange, Dutch King).

The UK constitution has not had revolutionary change, only evolutionary change. A current example of this is the House of Lords.

Since 1832 (William the Fourth), the Lords have been getting weaker.

%% judges determine the interpretation of the codified constitution, and therefore how aspects of it are applied this therefore inhibits government from making certain laws due to the nature of the constitution as an entrenched, fundamental law the constitution holds sovereignty

under a codified constitution, government does not determine its interpretation, judges do

the advantage under a judge is that the constitution is guaranteed, legal certainty downside of unelected judges

parliament is democratic and elected however rights are not guaranteed

POSITIVE OF CONSTITUTION: GUARANTEED NEGATIVE OF CONSTITUTION: UNELECTED JUDGETS

POSITIVE OF PARLIAMENT: DEMOCRACT, ELECTED NEGATIVE OF PARLIAMENT: RIGHTS ARE NOT GUARANTEED %%