ABSTRACT
The question principally deals with the issue of whether positive rights enshrined in written form are to be preferred to residual liberties. Presumably preferred in the sense of upholding the concept of the rule of law within our constitution. Parliament, through the Bill of Rights 1689, sought to protect its own position within constitutional law through the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. But if it were to introduce a Bill of Rights to protect the position of individual citizens it would arguably necessitate a reassessment of the current
constitutional position. Whereas Parliament would be free to decide upon the nature of such a Bill of Rights, you should recognise that we were one of the original signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights (which was in large part drafted by UK lawyers) and since 1966 have allowed a right of individual petition under the Convention to the European Commission of Human Rights. Thus we have already ratified a Bill of Rights but not, as yet, incorporated it into our own domestic law. The question also allows scope for a consideration of the past record of our judges in protecting the individual citizen against the abuses of State power. This might be achieved by reference to judge-made developments in administrative law under the judicial review function.
