The Nature and Sources of the UK Constitution

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• correctly identifies a first source, e.g. common law, with an accurate named example, e.g. much of the royal prerogative.2 marks
• explains why this source carries a different legal status from statute law, e.g. it can be developed or overturned by later judicial decisions rather than needing a formal legislative process to originate.3 marks
• correctly identifies a second source, e.g. constitutional conventions, with an accurate named example, e.g. the Salisbury Convention or individual ministerial responsibility.2 marks
• explains why this source is not legally enforceable, e.g. a court cannot strike down an action for breaching a convention, though breaking one carries a political cost.3 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 10 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• Excellent, detailed and accurate knowledge of the codification debate. Sustained, well-structured analysis and evaluation using specific, named evidence on both sides, reaching a fully substantiated overall judgement that directly answers the question.4 marks
• Accurate, mostly detailed knowledge of the codification debate. Good analysis and evaluation with named evidence on both sides, reaching a supported judgement, though development may be slightly uneven across the three paragraphs.4 marks
• Generally accurate knowledge with some detail. Some analysis and an attempt at a two-sided argument, but at least one paragraph is one-sided or relies on generic rather than named evidence, capping the level.4 marks
• Limited, mostly accurate knowledge. The answer is largely descriptive rather than analytical, with little genuine counter-argument or judgement in any paragraph.4 marks
• Basic, undeveloped knowledge with little relevant, accurate detail; no clear argument structure or judgement.4 marks
• No creditable content.4 marks
• entrenchment would protect rights and key institutions from being changed by a single Act of Parliament passed by a simple majority, unlike the current position where, for example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed after just over a decade; a single document would make the constitution more accessible than rules spread across statutes, case law and unwritten convention; codification could resolve ambiguities such as the exact extent of the royal prerogative, reducing reliance on courts to clarify the rules case by case as happened in the Miller cases.3 marks
• flexibility allowed major changes such as devolution (1998) and Supreme Court creation (2005) without a lengthy, contested amendment process; codification would transfer more interpretive power to unelected judges over what a fixed document means, which critics argue undermines parliamentary sovereignty; the uncodified constitution has evolved gradually without the revolution, civil war or state formation that typically produces a codified constitution elsewhere, suggesting it is not obviously broken.3 marks

Nothing ticked yet - 30 available