🏠 Home Detailed notes Sovereignty grid Predicted Q2(a) notes

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

Flexibility shown = did the constitution adapt smoothly to this change? Clarity of the rules = did everyone know what the rules were? Rights protected = were individual rights secured by this episode? Executive constrained = did this episode limit executive power in practice? Sovereignty intact = did Parliament keep the last word? Removable by statute = could a future Parliament undo it by ordinary Act? Strengthens the codification case = does this episode argue for a codified constitution?

Codified v uncodified constitution - judgement grid +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Episode+   - Flexibility shown Clarity of the rules Rights protected Executive constrained Sovereignty intact Removable by statute Strengthens the codification case
Human
Rights Act
(1998)
Constitutional
Reform Act
(2005)
FTPA 2011
+ repeal
(2022)
Prorogation
case
(2019)
Brexit
statutes
(2016-20)
Safety of
Rwanda Act
(2024)
How to use the grid in an essay. Pick the column the question is asking about (codification essays turn on Rights protected, Executive constrained, and Strengthens the codification case). Read down that column. Group your essay paragraphs by the cluster the column produces - not by episode-by-episode description, which the examiner marks down.

Codified v uncodified constitution - judgement grid +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Episode+   - Flexibility shown Clarity of the rules Rights protected Executive constrained Sovereignty intact Removable by statute Strengthens the codification case
Human
Rights Act
(1998)		 +Rights brought home by ordinary statute - no entrenchment needed. +Convention rights listed in one Act citizens can read. -Statute, not constitutional law - repealable; the 2022 Bill of Rights Bill tried. +Declarations of incompatibility (Belmarsh 2004) put real pressure on ministers. +Courts can declare incompatibility but cannot strike down an Act. +Amendable or repealable by any future majority. +Shows rights protection works - until a government wants it gone.
Constitutional
Reform Act
(2005)		 +A major separation-of-powers reform achieved by one ordinary Act. +Judicial independence now written down in statute. -Not a rights measure directly. +An independent court visibly separate from Parliament. +The new Court still cannot strike down statutes. +Repealable in theory - politically unthinkable now. -Proof the uncodified constitution can deliver structural reform smoothly.
FTPA 2011
+ repeal
(2022)		 +Created by one Act, repealed by another when it failed. -The 2019 deadlock showed nobody knew how the rules interacted. -Not a rights case. -The constraint collapsed - the executive legislated around it (2019), then repealed it (2022). +No Parliament bound its successor - exactly as Dicey says. +The textbook proof that constitutional statutes are repealable. +If election rules can be flipped by simple majority, only entrenchment makes them real.
Prorogation
case
(2019)		 -No written rule existed - the Court had to construct the test. -Nobody could say in advance whether the prorogation was lawful. -Not a rights case. +The Court stopped the executive - but only after the fact. +The ruling protected Parliament's right to sit. +Parliament could legislate to define prorogation rules at any time. +The strongest single modern argument that conventions are not enough.
Brexit
statutes
(2016-20)		 +The biggest legal change since 1972 absorbed without a written constitution. -Sewel bypassed, prorogation litigated - the era's phrase was constitutional crisis. -EU Charter rights fell away on exit. -Henry VIII powers in the Withdrawal Act let ministers amend statutes. +Factortame unwound - Parliament recovered the powers 1972 had pooled. +A 47-year settlement removed by ordinary statutes. -Flexibility is exactly what let the UK leave - codification might have locked it in.
Safety of
Rwanda Act
(2024)		 +Parliament reversed a Supreme Court ruling within months. +Everyone knew exactly where the last word lay. -Disapplied parts of the HRA for removals - rights gave way to statute. -A determined majority can legislate around the courts. +The sharpest modern statement of the Diceyan rule. +Itself repealable, like everything else. +For codifiers, the proof rights need entrenchment; for traditionalists, proof democracy decides.
What the filled grid shows. Read down the columns. Flexibility shown is plus in most rows - the uncodified constitution absorbs change easily, which is its defenders' whole case. Removable by statute is plus in every row - and that single column is the codifiers' whole case, because nothing in the UK constitution is protected from the next majority. Strengthens the codification case splits the grid down the middle: Miller 2, the FTPA mess and the Rwanda Act push one way; the CRA and Brexit's smooth legal absorption push the other. The judgement turns on which you weight: protection or adaptability.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me