Codified And Uncodified Constitution Compared To The United Kingdom

Firstly, I am going to discuss the core definition of a constitution, exploring the difference between codified and uncodified and assessing the complications of the two categories. Secondly, I shall explain the essential characteristics of a constitution as outlined by FF Ridley, applying Ridley’s test to the United Kingdom in order to establish whether the country can be defined as a constitution. Finally, I will analyse the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a codified constitution, evaluating other countries in comparison to the United Kingdom, to determine which would serve the country most appropriately.

In order to evaluate the characteristics of a constitution as outlined by FF Ridley, it is first essential to understand the

Codified is written, set out in a document or a series of documents, whereas uncodified is unwritten and not expressed in a document form. The most important difference between the two is the flexibility within them. The British constitution is described as flexible. Barnett describes the UK constitution as representing ‘the height of flexibility’. The UK government and Parliament could act quickly to change the law and restrict individual rights in the event of a crisis. In August 1987, a gunman in Hungerford England, killed sixteen people and injured fifteen others using weapons, such as semi-automatic rifles, which he legally owned. Following this tragedy, the Westminster Parliament was able to adjust the law, in order to protect Britain from any further incidents. They responded by passing the Firearms (amendment) Act 1988. This demonstrates that having an uncodified constitution is beneficial, as it is easily adaptable to suit modern day society, when emergencies occur

The first of which is that due to many codified constitutions being very old, particularly the American constitution, it is often being reinterpreted in order to make somewhat sense in the modern day world. The US Supreme Court, reinterprets the constitution so that it is clear however, this undoubtedly makes codified constitutions a reference point rather than a strict guide on how to act. This in turn leaves room for interpretation and most importantly ambiguity. Overall, this gives a codified constitution very much similar pros and cons to an uncodified constitution. Additionally, due to codified constitutions being very old and often rigid. A codified constitution is not updated to keep up with changing circumstances in the modern day. Moreover, it should be updated so that it can keep up with the principles which are no longer correct nor morally