Development of British Constitution Paper Example

Part 1

The glorious revolution between 1688 and 1689 can be traced as the genesis of the current constitution. Before this period the United Kingdom was a monarchy which was the supreme seat of power. The revolution which was started on religious grounds, saw King James II replaced by a joint monarchy of his daughter Mary and Dutch husband, William. The primary demand of Prince William's demands at his time of the invasion was a free parliament. The parliament pre the revolution was just but an extension of the crown. On the meeting on January 22, 1989, the convention parliament agreed that Prince William would rule as a joint monarch with his wife, Mary. But the crown would come at a price. The parliament presented the two with the Declaration of Rights that was, later enshrined as the Bill of rights. The document affirmed several constitutional principles like the prohibition of taxation without the consent of parliament, the need for regular parliaments, and illegality of prerogative suspension. This agreement was followed by the Triennial Act in 1694 to back the call for regular parliament. Prince William agreed to all these acts because he needed the support of parliament in upcoming wars. In the wake of the revolution, the parliament gained powers over royal succession, taxation, the right of the crown to wage war without concession of parliament and over appointments. Therefore, this revolution gave the parliament supremacy over the monarch.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The position of the prime minister can be traced back to 1721. Before this period, the monarch was the head of the executive, and the head of the executive chaired most of the cabinet meetings. However, with time, the king became less and less interested in the ongoings of the cabinet and the day to day running and hence needed a helping hand. Therefore, there was a minister appointed by the monarchy to facilitate the running of the cabinet. He was required to chair the meetings and coordinate all the many activities of the cabinet on behalf of the king. Over time the position has evolved severally time. It is from this moment that shaped the face of the modern-day executive. Therefore, this moment is a significant one in the history of the constitution of the United Kingdom due to its significance in the modern day set up of the constitution and government set up.

The great reform act was more 'great' in context than content. It was the first step of many towards attaining democracy as it is for the citizens of the United Kingdom. Before the act, voting was a reserve for the few. It was an exercise that was dependent on a myriad of factors for one to be eligible to participate. Some of the factors that determined if one was eligible to vote were factors like the location one lived in, the property one owned, the taxes one paid among other factors. For instance, some rapidly growing boroughs that had with high population but had no representatives while on the other hand some had few voters but only had two representatives. These factors made the elections in the United Kingdom to lack balance and representativeness. This situation necessitated the need for electoral reforms. These reforms faced a revolt from a majority of those in power including the then prime minister Duke of Wellington a position that saw him lose his job. After an immense struggle in the parliament and the streets, the first batch of electoral reforms happened in 1832. The act saw an increase in the number of male voter thou there was still a large portion of the citizens that was still ineligible to vote. The act might have little impact at the time, but it was the one that gave way for subsequent electoral reforms that enhanced democracy to what it is today.

The European Community Act 1972 was the law that was responsible for bringing the United Kingdom under the umbrella of the European Union. It is the piece of legislation that sealed the marriage between the two entities. This act had a significant effect on the constitution of the United Kingdom. This fact was because it gave legal authority for the European Union law supremacy over the national law of the United Kingdom. This translated into the fact that from then henceforth, the European law would carry more weight in the United Kingdom than the national law. It achieved this by ensuring that the some of the types of the European Union legislation like treaties and regulations would have a direct effect in the United Kingdom law system without necessarily the UK having to pass a bill in their parliament for example safety standards enacted by the European Union would automatically apply in the United Kingdom. Also, some types of the European Union legislation like decisions and directives could enforce through primary legislation or secondary legislation, for example, the implementation of working time directive in the United Kingdom was implemented by adopting the one for the European Union. This action was tantamount to weakening the constitution of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom Labor government introduced the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, and National Assembly for Wales following the referendums in the respective areas. The referendums received support from the voters. Before this moment, the United Kingdom was a centralized state. Three main acts facilitated the setup of these devolved units. These are Scotland Act 1998, The Government of Wales act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These Acts have been amended severally to support the changing situation. The introduction of devolution resulted in the decentralization of the United Kingdom state where some functions were devolved to the unions. Some of the devolved aspects are agriculture, housing, local government, and health. For Scotland particularly The three were devolved to the three states, but Scotland saw more characters devolved like criminal justice and policing. The devolution of powers changed the constitutional set up of the United Kingdom in the sense that the process of the legislature is now broadened after factoring in the local governments set up.

Part 2

Process of judicial Review

According to Ramlogan, the judicial review is a process that aims to challenge the decision-making process of the central government through the use of courts. In doing so, the court performs a supervisory role curtailing the decision-making entities from overstepping in their mandate. This process is fundamental as it ensures that the different decision-making agencies do not abuse power. According to Elliott judicial review is applied in filling the accountability deficit in the government structure. Usually, the judicial review process consists of seven steps. These steps ensure that the process is fair to all the parties involved therefore coming up with the best decision. These steps include time limit preparation, pre-action protocol, applying for permission from the courts, substantive stage, judgment pronouncement and finally the appeal. These steps are discussed comprehensively in the next section.

Judicial review has to be made per the time limits that have been set by the courts This time limit usually spans from the day a given entity makes a decision that affects them. This period the affected individual seeks advice from relevant sources to ensure that they indeed have a valid claim. Keeping heed to time limits, an individual should proceed to write a letter to the defendant notifying them of their claim. After the letter is drafted and sent and the response is unsatisfactory, one can then proceed to lodge a claim in the Administrative Court. This step involves seeking the permission of the court. In this step, the court gauges the case and then gives the go-ahead or rejects the claim if it is unable to see any arguable mistake according to the law. If the court grants permission the case then proceeds to the substantive stage. This stage involves producing of evidence and disclosure. This step involves the two sides producing supporting evidence which is then followed by full disclosure of all documents to opposing sides followed by identification of the critical areas by the court.

The end of the case is usually near when all these steps have been undertaken. The next step is the court fee schedule. This step is organized for the court to determine the amount of money that is payable according to the set rules. It is in this step that the claims and other costs that are related to the case are calculated. After the court fees schedule, the next step in is the pronouncement of the judgment. It is in this stage that the judge makes a ruling regarding the case after carefully weighing the presented evidence. The judge can deliver the verdict immediately orally or hand it down later in writing. Handed down verdicts are usually more detailed compared to oral verdicts. This reason makes them more satisfactory in most cases for both sides. The final step in the judicial review process is the appeal. This step gives a chance for the party that is still dissatisfied with the decision to seek reprieve in the court of appeal, where the two parties again defend their position to convince the court in their favor.

The Judicial Review Process Within the British Constitution

The many institutions of powers in the United Kingdom necessitate the need for a compromise in the interaction of the various bodies of power. These powers are generally classified into three which are the parliament, government and the courts to streamline their coherence. The judicial review process mainly hinges on the courts which are mandated with the oversight role. In the past, the court system in the UK was reasonably complicated by the fact that most of the leaders of the judiciary were part of the legislature. This situation was changed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that improved some of the areas where the separation of power was least separated. This change brought more clarity in the roles the court and their general structure that before. This act created the Supreme Court structure and replaced the head of the courts Lord Chancellor with the Head of Judiciary. These changes made the courts to be more independent making the more suited in playing their role of oversight.

In the UK, the Judiciary are separated from each other to ensure that they can play their respective roles respectively. A judge of the courts is not allowed to run for an elective position unless they resign. The judges' independence is enhanced by the fact that judges of the higher courts have life tenure (Kavanagh, 2009). This aspect ensures that it would require resolution of both houses of parliament to remove the judge of the high court from their position. On the other hand, it will need disciplinary proceedings to remove a judge of the lower courts from office. Between the courts and the legislature, the legislature, the parliament is superior. Therefore, the courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts of parliament nor can they cannot restrict parliamentary proceedings as outlined in Article 9 of the Bill of rights 1689. The courts are given the role of interpreting the laws with the spirit parliament had while making them. The relationship between the executive and the judiciary is where judicial review is manifested. The courts are supposed to scrutinize the executive as they execute their functions to ensure the actions and all other public bodies are within the set law. Therefore, the judiciary is within their rights to question the actions made by the executive if they deem them to be against the law.

In the light of the interaction between the three bodies, it is clear that the judiciary and the parliament play more of a complementary role where their functions do not o...