Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:51:58.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The British Constitution and the Movement for a Modern Bill of Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Kersi B. Shroff
Kersi B. Shroff*
Affiliation:
Barrister (Lincoln's Inn), Master of Comp. Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It took the incisive pen of H.G. Wells to provide a simple understanding of the diffuse and arcane British constitution:

Nobody planned the confounded constitution. It came about; … but you see it came about so happily in a way, it so suited the climate and temperament of our people and our island, it was on the whole so cosy, that our people settled down into it. You can't help settling down into it.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly look at some aspects of the constitution that the British “settled down into” and to examine arguments calling for the incorporation of a written declaration of individual rights.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 15 , Issue 3-4 , August 1987 , pp. 99 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wells, H.G., Mr. Britling Sees It Through, bk. a, ch. 1, sec. 11.Google Scholar

2. 10 Halsbury's Statutes of England (4th ed. 1985).Google Scholar

3. 801 Parl. Deb., H.C. (5th ser.) 198 (1970).Google Scholar

4. The Chequers Estate Act 1917.Google Scholar

5. Bagehot, W., The English Constitution 111.Google Scholar

6. deSmith, S. A, Constitutional and Administrative Law 99 (3rd ed. 1977).Google Scholar

7. McIlwain, C. H., Constitutionalism and the Changing World 279 (1939).Google Scholar

8. Id. at 279-80.Google Scholar

9. British Coal Corp. v. The King, [1935] A.C. 500, 520 (H.L.).Google Scholar

10. See the opinion of the Privy Council declaring a Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) statute ultra vires and void: Liyange v. The Queen, [1967] 1 A.C. 259 (P.C.).Google Scholar

11. Burmah Oil Co., Ltd. v. Lord Advocate, [1965] A.C. 75 (H.L.).Google Scholar

12. Turpin, C., British Government and the Constitution 56-57 (1985).Google Scholar

13. City of London v. Wood, 88 Eng. Rep. 1592, 1602 (1701).Google Scholar

14. Jolowicz, “The Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights under English Law.” In The Cambridge-Tilburg Law Lectures 1979 at 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Allen, “Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitutionalism,” Cambridge Law Journal (1985). 11-12.Google Scholar

16. Scarman, L., English Law—The New Dimension 69 (1974).Google Scholar

17. Id. 74-5.Google Scholar

18. Jennings, I., The Law and The Constitution 247 (4th ed. 1952).Google Scholar

19. Malone, v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (No. 2), [1979] 2 All E.R. 620, 630 (Ch.D.), per Meggary, V-C.Google Scholar

20. Baldwin, Robertson v., 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1986).Google Scholar

21. Supra note 12, at 92.Google Scholar

22. For a descriptive account of the trial, see I. Stevens & D. Yardley, The Protection of Liberty 122-23 (1982) and G. Robertson & A. Nicol, Media Law 92-94 (1984).Google Scholar

23. Shaw v. D.P.P., [1962] A.C. 220 (H.L.).Google Scholar

24. Id. at 293-94.Google Scholar

25. Supra note 22, at 124.Google Scholar

26. Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch. 269. 284.Google Scholar

27. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273 (H.L.).Google Scholar

28. Sunday Times v. United Kingdom. [1979] 2 E.H.RR. 245.Google Scholar

29. Scarman, L., “Human Rights: The Current Situation,” in Do We Need A Bill of Rights? ed. C. Campbell 6 (1980).Google Scholar

30. Supra note 12, at 10.Google Scholar