Farrah Ahmed and I have a new paper out in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies: ‘Constitutional Statutes’.
This is our second paper on constitutional statutes. Back in 2012, in BH v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court suggested that constitutional statutes could only be repealed expressly, not by implication. In 2015, Farrah and I published a paper in CLJ, ‘The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes’ (published | draft), criticising the notion that judges can, on their own initiative, immunise statutes from implied repeal.
That first paper was mainly critical and negative. In this new paper, Farrah and I focus on the positive. We set out a definition of a constitutional statute. We also say how courts should (as opposed to shouldn’t) treat constitutional statutes. Here’s the abstract:
In recent years, British courts have treated constitutional statutes differently from ordinary statutes. This article sets outs to explain: (i) how courts have treated constitutional statutes differently from ordinary statutes; (ii) what a constitutional statute is; and (iii) why constitutional statutes should be treated differently from ordinary statutes. Courts have made it harder for ordinary statutes to repeal constitutional statutes by implication, and easier for constitutional statutes to repeal ordinary statutes by implication. A constitutional statute is a statute which regulates state institutions, and which possesses importance of a particular type that we describe. The nature of a constitutional statute largely—but not entirely—justifies the special treatment they have been given. These conclusions have wider implications, including for proposals to codify the British constitution.