What makes the uk constitution different from other constitutions

UNIT 5. CONSTITUTIONS OF THE USA AND THE UK

1. Прочитайте текст и ответьте на вопросы:

1.When was the US Constitution adopted?

2.What does the US Constitution consist of?

3.How are the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution called?

4.What rights and liberties are protected under the Bill of Rights?

5.What is required in federal criminal cases?

6.What kind of trial is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

7.What are key features of the US Constitution?

8.What are the three branches of power according to the Constitution?

9.Is there a strict separation of powers?

10.Does any branch have more power than the others?

11.What duties does every branch have regarding the other branches under the principle of checks and balances?

12.What are the composition and powers of the judicial branch according to the US Constitution?

THE US CONSTITUTION

The form of the US government is based on the Constitution of 1787 which was adopted after the War of Independence. The US Constitution consists of 7 articles and 27 amendments. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights and were adopted in 1791 under popular pressure.

2. Выразите согласие/несогласие со следующими утверждениями, используя ту или иную речевую модель

c)I think it is true. The text tells us that ………

d)To my mind, it is false because …………

1.The US Constitution was adopted in 1918 after the World War I.

2.The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights.

3.The Bill of Rights sets forth the structure of the Federal Government.

4.The key features of the US Constitution are federalism, the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.

5.The legislative branch has more powers then the others.

6.The powers of the three branches don’t overlap.

7.The system of checks and balances was meant to protect against the extremes.

8.The responsibilities of the Congress are to protect the rights of citizens and enforce laws.

9.The executive branch consists of the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet and the 13 Departments, and also of the independent agencies.

10.The judicial branch explains and interprets laws and makes decisions in lawsuits.

3. Прочитайте текст и ответьте на вопросы

1.What makes the UK Constitution different from other constitutions?

2.What are the sources of the UK Constitution?

3.What is the core principle of the UK Constitution?

4.What bodies represent the three branches of power (executive, legislative and judiciary)?

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION

The British Constitution is unwritten unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, and as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution in the sense that there is no single document that can be identified as Britain’s constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. The main ones are: Statutes (the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701), Acts of Parliament; customs and traditions, political conventions, case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law.

Since the English Civil War, the core principle of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK’s supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliamentto to be followed by the Royal Assent. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today, in part due to the UK’s European Union membership.

According to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. There are many Acts of Parliament which themselves have constitutional significance. For example, Parliament has the power to determine the length of its own term. However, the Sovereign retains the power to dissolve parliament at any time on the advice of the Prime Minister. Parliament also has the power to change the structure of its constituent houses and the relation between them. consists of the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. All the legislation must receive the approval of the Sovereign (Royal Assent). Following the accession of the UK to European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1972, the UK became bound by European law and more importantly, the principle of the supremacy of European Union law. House of Commons alone possesses the power to pass a motion of no confidence in the Government, which requires the Government either to resign or seek fresh elections. Such a motion does not require passage by the Lords, or Royal Assent. Parliament traditionally also has the power to remove individual members of the government by impeachment. By the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 it has the power to remove individual judges from office for misconduct. executive power in the United Kingdom is exercised by the Sovereign through Her Majesty’s Government. The monarch appoints a Prime Minister as the head of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister then selects the other Ministers which make up the Government. As in some other parliamentary systems of government, the executive is answerable to Parliament. Courts of the United Kingdom are separated into three separate jurisidictions serving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as the United Kingdom does not have a single unified judicial system. Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the judicial functions of the House of Lords and devolution cases from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Supreme Court began work in 2009, and serves as the highest court of appeal in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and for civil cases in Scotland. The High Court of Justiciary will remain the court of last resort in Scotland for criminal cases.

4. Согласитесь или опровергните следующие утверждения

1.The British Constitution is unwritten like the Constitutions of the USA and the Proposed European Constitution.

2.The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents.

3.Amendments to the British Constitution need the approval of the both Houses of Parliament, but they do not need the Royal Assent.

4.The parliamentary sovereignty has always been the core principle of the British Constitution.

5.The Sovereign has no power to dissolve parliament.

6.Parliament has no power to change the structure of its houses.

7.The British Parliament consists only of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

8.The European law has priority over the UK law.

9.The executive power in the United Kingdom is exercised by the Sovereign.

10.The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

5. Прочитайте текст о разных видах конституции и переведите его письменно.

The British Constitution

A short guide

A short guide to the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom does not have a constitution

The UK has no written constitution. Nor does England have a constitution, neither written nor formulated. The United Kingdom is one of the few countries of the world that does not have a written constitution: it just has what is known as an «uncodified constitution».
Thus the only » British Constitution » that exists is a set of rules and regulations constituted by jurisprudence and laws (English and Scottish law), and by various treaties and international agreements to which the United Kingdom has signed up. This uncodified constitution has largely developed out of historic English law, since many of its founding principles and essential laws go back to charters and bills that were drawn up by the English parliament long before the creation of the United Kingdom.

Parliament and the constitution

Parliament and Brexit.

Note: important distinction.

While Parliament cannot act outside the law as it is the supreme maker of law, the government can do so. This was shown in January 2017, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Government’s decision to short-circuit parliamentary scrutiny in preparing a Brexit agreement was unconstitutional.

Common Law and the constitution

Other elements of the British Constitution

Finally, there are other elements that serve to define the rights and obligations of the British people. Britain has signed up to numerous international conventions and treaties, which can determine the legality or otherwise of actions or processes, such as marine pollution or human rights. European law also applies in the UK, and according to the principle of Primacy included in the charter of the European Union, EU law takes precedence over UK law in any event of incompatibility.

Church and state

Developments

Being uncodified, the Constitution of the United Kingdom is in a state of constant flux. Each new law, each new major decision by judges, becomes a new stone in the edifice of the British Constitution. Thus, the British constitution changes all the time, very slowly, often imperceptibly. Britain moves forward by evolution, not by revolution.
Currently, one of the changes being discussed is the modernisation of the House of Lords, to make it at least in part a chamber to which members can be elected. At present, this is not the case. The Cameron government pledged to introduce chages in the life of the present Parliament, but British voters are not very concerned by this issue. It does not arouse much passion on either side of the argument. As of 2014, it seems unlikely that this «constitutional reform» will be enacted before the next General Election; few people in the UK think that constitutional reform is is necessary, let alone essential; the UK functions fairly well without a written constitution, and without big changes to the uncodified constitution that it does have. When it comes to change, the Government and the British people have other more important and urgent things to think about.

Copyright : Website and texts В© About-Britain.com 2009-2022 except where otherwise indicated

The state opening of Parliament

Copyright : Website and texts В© About-Britain.com

Photos of the House of Commons and of the Opening of Parliament, reproduced by permission of the British Parliament.
Creative commons licence.

The UK constitution

What are constitutions and why do they matter?

The term ‘constitution’ refers to the principles, rules and laws that establish and underpin a political system. The constitution creates and defines the powers of different political institutions and determines how they should relate to each other. It sets out the limits of these powers and regulates the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Constitutions place both limitations and obligations on governmental organisations in their relationship with the people, and provide opportunities for the public to influence the political process.

Click on any of the questions below to be taken to the answer.

Is the constitution of the United Kingdom written down?

It is often noted that the UK does not have a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. It is true that most countries have a document with special legal status that contains some of the key features of their constitution. This text is usually upheld by the courts and cannot be changed except through an especially demanding process. The UK, however, does not possess a single constitutional document of this nature. Nevertheless, it does have a constitution. The UK’s constitution is spread across a number of places. This dispersal can make it more difficult to identify and understand. It is found in places including some specific Acts of Parliament; particular understandings of how the system should operate (known as constitutional conventions); and various decisions made by judges that help determine how the system works.

Why is the UK’s constitution different to most other modern liberal democracies?

As described above, the UK’s constitution is different from many other countries in that its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. This can be explained in part by UK history. Unlike France, Italy and many other places, the UK did not experience a revolution or moment of political rupture in the late eighteenth century or nineteenth century, when written constitutions were at their most popular after the American Revolutionary War.

Unlike in the United States, where the constitution is the ‘supreme law’ the UK system has no clear concept of a ‘higher law’: there is no clear distinction between what is a constitutional law and what is a regular law. This also means there are no special procedures for changing the constitution itself in the UK. If it is determined to do so, a ‘constitutional statute’ can be repealed or amended by simple majority votes in Parliament, like any other legislation. This differs from the situation in countries such as the United States, where the constitution is ‘entrenched’ – in other words, needing to satisfy additional requirements in order for it to be amended. The UK constitution can be altered relatively easily by the government of the day, meaning it changes more frequently than many other constitutions. It is often said that the UK Parliament is ‘sovereign’. This parliamentary ‘sovereignty’ means that Parliament can make or unmake any law, without being limited by a constitutional text.

Is Magna Carta (1215) our constitution?

Magna Carta (translated as Great Charter) was an agreement reached at Runnymede in 1215 between King John and a group of English barons who had been part of a rebellion against the King. In chapter 39 and 40 it stated that:

39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Magna Carta became significant in placing formal limits on the King’s power over his subjects, and in articulating the notion that the monarch should not be above the constraints of the law. In this, we can see the origins of a foundational constitutional principle: the rule of law (that everyone within a state should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law).

Many look to Magna Carta in the way people in other countries might look to a ‘written’ constitution. Although the extent of what it actually secured in thirteenth-century England has often been overstated, it no doubt represents a significant point in the development of our constitutional system. Much of its impact came through inspiring and supporting future developments, such as ‘habeas corpus’: that a person may not be detained without legal reason. Furthermore, it predated the existence of the UK by five centuries, and was an English document (though written in Latin).

What are the sources of the UK constitution?

The sources of the UK constitution are various, including both law and other less formal documents, without legal force.

Acts of the UK Parliament: certain pieces of primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament form a major source for aspects of the UK constitution. These laws provide for: the devolution settlements; the right to vote and the holding of elections; the upholding of human rights; the prohibition of discrimination; the existence of the Supreme Court; and much else. As mentioned previously, despite the constitutional significance of these statutes, there is no clear formal means of distinguishing them from more regular laws which deal with policy areas such as education and transport.

Conventions: are understandings about how the constitution functions. They can be hard to define precisely and in a way that commands wide agreement; and they lack hard legal force. But conventions are the source of some of the most important features of the UK system of government. For instance, that the Prime Minister should be a member of the House of Commons able to command the confidence of that institution is only a convention. Traditionally, conventions tended not to be written down in official documents. But, increasingly in recent decades, accounts of them have come to be included in texts published by bodies such as the UK government. These include the Cabinet Manual and the Ministerial Code.

Common law: the UK has what’s known as a ‘common law’ system, meaning that judges declare the law as derived from custom and precedent. Although it is the role of the courts to interpret the rules, not to make them; in practice, through identifying what the law is, judges can create it. In doing so, they have established important features of the UK constitution, such as individual rights and the idea that public authorities are subject to limitations and do not possess arbitrary power.

Authoritative works: in the UK system, as we have seen, the constitution is spread over a number of documents and sources, which can make it particularly hard to decipher. Given this, the interpretations of experts seeking to make sense of the system can become particularly important and influential. In fact, they can become so influential to perceptions of the system that they seem to become part of it. The views of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century legal scholar, Albert Venn Dicey, for instance, came to underpin the widely accepted doctrine known as ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. The political journalist, Walter Bagehot, writing in the nineteenth century, helped shape the conception and operation of a constitutional monarchy. Although knowledge of these works has declined since the twentieth century, they continue to be important today, having shaped the ideas even of those who do not know what their source is.

What key reforms have been made to the UK constitution over time?

Although they do not provide a comprehensive picture, we can get a sense of the changing UK constitution through a number of key Acts of Parliament.

1536/1543: two laws now known as the ‘Acts of Union’ between Wales and England legally incorporated Wales into England. Among other measures, the 1536 law prevented the use of the Welsh language in court proceedings; while the 1543 Act provided more detail to the general settlement set out in the earlier law.

The Bill of Rights 1689: the Catholic King James II was defeated in the revolution of 1688-89 and replaced by Mary II and William III (the Prince of Orange), ruling jointly. The Bill of Rights in essence established the terms of his ascension to the throne, and was the outcome of negotiation between William and contemporary political leaders. It was a statute of particular constitutional importance in firmly establishing the authority and independence of Parliament in relation to the monarch. Laws could no longer be suspended or got rid of without the consent of Parliament. It also contained provisions to further protect the liberty and security of the individual.

The Act of Settlement 1701: prevented Catholics from taking the English throne and provided for the ascension of the House of Hanover. In doing so, it established Parliament’s right to decide on the line of succession, further enhancing its power. It also contained important constitutional provisions relating to the independence of the judiciary. The Act protected the salaries and positions of judges, aiming to give them the security to enforce the law without fear of retribution.

The Treaty and Acts of Union of 1706-1707: provided for the union of Scotland and England. Two Acts were passed, one by the English Parliament and one by the Scottish Parliament, implementing the Treaty of Union. Whilst England and Scotland had the same monarch since 1603, they retained separate legislatures. After the Acts of Union, they united to form a single legislature: the Parliament of Great Britain, and a single state. Nonetheless, Scotland retained its own legal system, arrangements for education, local government, and religion.

Act of Union 1800: brought about a Union of Ireland and Great Britain. This arrangement began on a controversial footing because it was not accompanied by measures to remove political discrimination against Catholics.

The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949: established in law the primacy of the House of Commons and reduced the power of the House of Lords. The Acts meant that the Lords could in most cases no longer veto legislation if the Commons was determined to pass it. Bills could be presented for Royal Assent without the approval of the second chamber, as long a certain amount of time had elapsed and certain other conditions were met. The Lords no longer had any power at all to reject bills certified as relating to financial matters, giving the Commons clear control over money.

The European Communities Act 1972: provided for the UK’s ascension to the three European Communities (the European Economic Community, the European Atomic Energy Community, and the European Coal and Steel Community). Constitutionally, the most significant aspect of the Act was that European Community Law (later EU law) became incorporated and binding within UK domestic law. Furthermore, it stipulated that Community Law was ‘supreme’ within a member state, with potential conflicts between domestic law and EU legislation overseen by the European Court of Justice. It eventually became established that an Act of Parliament could be ‘disapplied’ in as far as it contradicted European law – a new departure for the UK constitution.

The Human Rights Act 1998: gave direct effect in domestic law to the rights contained within the European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950 after the Second World War. The 1998 Act meant that human rights cases could be heard in UK courts, rather than individuals having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, it stipulates that as far as possible judges must interpret Acts of Parliament so they are compatible with the rights in the Convention. If this is not possible, they may issue a declaration stating that the legislation is incompatible. However, this does not affect the validity of the primary legislation and the law remains the same unless it is altered by Parliament.

The House of Lords Act 1999: reduced the size of the House of Lords and largely removed hereditary peerages (where an individual could inherit a seat in the Lords through their family). It reduced the number of peers from 1330 to 669.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: repealed the European Communities Act 1972 (see above), thus removing the provision that EU legislation automatically takes effect as domestic law in the UK. It was introduced by the Theresa May government in 2018 as part of the process of the UK’s exit from the European Union. It transferred all EU law onto the UK statute book and gave ministers powers to make changes to this ‘retained EU law’ in the future.

What are the advantages of having an ‘uncodified’ constitution?

Some praise the UK’s uncodified constitution for its flexibility. As the timeline above indicates, the constitution has been modified frequently over many years in response to changing circumstances. Its proponents argue this allows for a pragmatic approach, where different things can be tried, tested and developed, with an optimal arrangement being honed over time. They point to other countries with hard to change codified constitutions that have been unable to update their political systems in line with changing attitudes and political realities. The issue of gun ownership in the United States provides one often cited example of this, where controls have been hard to implement because of the 2 nd Amendment.

Many also believe that having an uncodified constitution is more democratic. Rather than being bound by the decisions of past generations, it allows for each successive generation to influence the constitution through the representatives they elect. If a party with a constitutional reform agenda is elected, they are able to carry out what the people have voted for. The new Labour government of 1997 had a wide-ranging constitutional programme, including devolution and human rights, that might have been difficult to implement otherwise. In an uncodified constitution, its supporters argue, it is elected politicians, rather than unelected judges, who have the final say.

What are the disadvantages of having an ‘uncodified’ constitution?

Critics of the uncodified constitution argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse. In the UK system, there are few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons, which could alter the rules for its own advantage. In theory, a powerful government could abolish the devolved legislatures and repeal the Human Rights Act. There are also few barriers against a government rushing through poorly thought-out changes to the constitution.

For some the UK’s constitution is pragmatic, for others it is piecemeal. In other words, changes often happen in stops and starts and through gradual, sporadic tweaks. When the constitution isn’t considered as a whole, they say, it can lead to unintended negative consequences.

Finally, many argue that the UK’s uncodified constitution is confusing and ambiguous. This makes it more difficult for citizens to fully understand, and therefore to know when a government is abusing its position. This lack of clarity can also be exploited by those in power to get away with things that would be more difficult if the rules were clearer. It also can make the business of governing harder, as there will be doubts surrounding the roles and responsibilities of different political institutions. Proponents of a codified constitution argue that stating clearly all in one place how the political system operates would enable the government to better serve the public and the public to better engage with government.

PowerPoint

Click here for a PowerPoint on the basics of the UK constitution, that condenses the information above. The PowerPoint is primarily designed for teachers covering the topic.

Further reading:

From the UK Parliament website:

Human Rights Act Review: Do not risk UK’s constitutional settlement and enforcement of rights by amending Act, urge MPs and Peers

The Parliament Acts explained by the UK Parliament website

Footer

The Constitution Society

Top Floor, 61 Petty France, London, SW1H 9EU
Registered charity no: 1139515
Company limited by guarantee no: 7432769

Прочитайте текст и ответьте на вопросы

1. What makes the UK Constitution different from other constitutions?

2. What are the sources of the UK Constitution?

3. What is the core principle of the UK Constitution?

4. What bodies represent the three branches of power (executive, legislative and judiciary)?

The British Constitution is unwritten unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, and as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution in the sense that there is no single document that can be identified as Britain’s constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. The main ones are: Statutes (the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701), Acts of Parliament; customs and traditions, political conventions, case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law.

Since the English Civil War, the core principle of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK’s supreme and final source of law. It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament to be followed by the Royal Assent. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today, in part due to the UK’s European Union membership.

According to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. There are many Acts of Parliament which themselves have constitutional significance. For example, Parliament has the power to determine the length of its own term. However, the Sovereign retains the power to dissolve Parliament at any time on the advice of the Prime Minister. Parliament also has the power to change the structure of its constituent Houses and the relation between them.

Parliament consists of the Sovereign, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. All the legislation must receive the approval of the Sovereign (the Royal Assent). Following the accession of the UK to European Economic Community (now the European Union) in 1972, the UK became bound by European law and more importantly, the principle of the supremacy of European Union law.

The House of Commons alone possesses the power to pass a motion of no-confidence in the Government, which requires the Government either to resign or seek fresh elections. Such a motion does not require passage by the Lords, or the Royal Assent. Parliament traditionally also has the power to remove individual members of the government by impeachment. By the Constitutional Reform Act2005 it has the power to remove individual judges from office for misconduct.

The executive power in the United Kingdom is exercised by the Sovereign through Her Majesty’s Government. The monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the head of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister then selects the other Ministers which make up the Government. As in some other parliamentary systems of government, the executive is accountable to Parliament.

The Courts of the United Kingdom are divided into three separate jurisdictions serving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, since the United Kingdom does not have a single unified judicial system.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the judicial functions of the House of Lords and devolution cases from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Supreme Court began its work in 2009, and serves as the highest court of appeal in England, Wales and in Northern Ireland, and for civil cases in Scotland. The High Court of Justiciary remains the court of last resort in Scotland for criminal cases.

4. Выразите согласие/несогласие со следующими утверждениями.

1. The British Constitution is unwritten unlike the Constitutions of the USA and the proposed European Constitution.

2. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents.

3. Amendments to the British Constitution need the approval of both Houses of Parliament, but they do not need the Royal Assent.

4. Parliamentary sovereignty has always been the core principle of the British Constitution.

5. The Sovereign has no power to dissolve Parliament.

6. Parliament has no power to change the structure of its houses.

7. The British Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

8. The European law has priority over the UK law.

9. The executive power in the United Kingdom is exercised by the Sovereign.

10. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

5. Прочитайте текст о различных типах конституций и переведите его.

Types of Constitutions

A Constitution is a system which establishes the fundamental rules and principles which a state will use to govern and regulate.

There are several types of constitutions: written/unwritten, rigid/flexible, federal/unitary.

The term written constitution is used to describe a constitution that is entirely written, that is codified in one single document. Written constitutions normally consist of a ceremonial preamble, which sets forth the goals of the state and the motivation for the constitution, and several articles containing the substantive provisions.

The term unwritten constitution is used to describe a constitution in which no single, formal document delineates the powers of a government. Instead, an unwritten constitution comprises the body of a country’s laws, enacted over time, with an emphasis on political precedent and parliamentary procedure, to create a framework in which a limited government operates. Unwritten constitutions can contain written sources: e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament; and also unwritten sources: constitutional conventions, customs and traditions.

Many historians use the term “rigid” to describe the Constitution because in such constitution there are provisions in writing that cannot be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner as ordinary laws. On the other hand, the Constitution is called “flexible” because it is an unwritten document that can be changed by an act of Parliament or through a process of amendment.

The federal constitution establishes the division of authority between the Federal Government and the component units of the government. In a federal constitution, sovereignty is invested in the central government. It allows a limited amount of government among units.

The unitary constitution relates to the parliament. It follows parliamentary system of power. The unitary constitution establishes a unitary system of government where a central government does exist. Although units are associated with that government, sovereignty is controlled by the central government.

6. Используя текст, охарактеризуйте конституции Российской Федерации, США и Великобритании.

При изменении прямой речи в косвенную соблюдаются следующие правила.

1. Запятая и кавычки опускаются. Возможен союз “that”.

Example: Прямая речь:The judge says, “The defendant is guilty”.

Косвенная речь:The judge says (that) the defendant is guilty.

2. Все личные и притяжательные местоимения изменяются по смыслу в зависимости от лица, от которого ведется речь. (1-е лицо меняется на 3-е лицо; 2-е лицо меняется на1-е лицо или на 3-е лицо).

Example: Citizen B. says, “My human rights and freedoms are violated.” – Citizen B. says that his rights and freedoms are violated.

3.а) В утвердительном предложении глагол в повелительном наклонении заменяется инфинитивом.

Example: “Callthe police immediately!” the robbed woman cried. – The robbed woman cried to call the police immediately.

б) В отрицательном предложении 1-я форма глагола изменяется на “not” + инфинитив.

Example: “Don’t threaten my key witness!” the lawyer shouted. – The lawyer shouted not tothreaten his key witness.

4. Если в прямой речи глагол главного предложения стоит в прошедшем времени, то при преобразовании прямой речи в косвенную речь время глагола придаточного предложения меняется в соответствии с правилами последовательности употребления времён(the Sequence of Tenses). Именно в этом основное различие между русским и английским языками в употреблении косвенной речи.

Таким образом, в косвенной речи вместо Present Indefinite употребляется время Past Indefinite:

Example: A police officer said, “I investigate serious crimes.” – A police officer said he investigated serious crimes.

вместо Present Continuous употребляется время Past Continuous:

Example: A police officer said, “I am investigating serious crimes.” – A police officer said he was investigating serious crimes.

вместо Present Perfect употребляется время Past Perfect:

Example: A police officer said, “I have investigated serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had investigated serious crimes.

вместо Present Perfect Continuous употребляется время Past Perfect Continuous:

Example: A police officer said, “I have been investigating serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had been investigating serious crimes.

вместо Past Indefinite употребляется Past Perfect:

Example: A police officer said, “I investigated serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had investigated serious crimes.

вместоPast Continuous употребляетсяPast Perfect Continuous:

Example: A police officer said, “I was investigating serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had been investigating serious crimes.

вместо Future Indefinite употребляется соответствующая форма Future in the Past:

Example: A police officer said, “I will investigate serious crimes.” – A police officer said he would investigate serious crimes.

вместо Future Continuous употребляется форма Future Continuous in the Past:

Example: A police officer said, “I will be investigating serious crimes.”– A police officer said he would be investigating serious crimes.

Вместо Future Perfect употребляется соответствующая форма Future Perfect in the Past:

Example: A police officer said, “I will have investigated serious crimes.” – A police officer said he would have investigated serious crimes.

Времена Past Perfect и Past Perfect Continuous остаются без изменений.

Example: A police officer said, “I had investigated serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had investigated serious crimes.

Example: A police officer said, “I had been investigating serious crimes.” – A police officer said he had been investigating serious crimes.

5. Past Indefinite и Past Continuous могут оставаться без изменений при обращении прямой речи в косвенную, когда указано точное время совершения действия.

Example: The Foreign Minister said, “The International agreement on cooperation was signed on October 9, 2003.”– The Foreign Minister said that the International agreement on cooperation was signed on October 9, 2003”.

6. Если содержание прямой речи представляет собой неоспоримую истину (universal truth), грамматическое время глагола не меняется.

Example: Delivering a lecture on the intellectual property the professor said, “Copyright isthe body of law that dealswith the ownership and use of works of literature, music and art.” – Delivering a lecture on the intellectual property the professor saidthat copyright isthe body of law that deals with the ownership and use of works of literature, music and art.

7. Указательные местоимения и наречия времени и места, употребляемые в прямой речи, заменяются в косвенной речи соответствующими им по смыслу словами и выражениями.

This (этот) меняется на that (тот).

These (эти) меняется на those (эти).

Now (теперь) меняется на then (тогда).

Today (сегодня) меняется на that day (в тот день).

Tomorrow (завтра) меняется на the next day (на следующий день).

The day after tomorrow (послезавтра) меняется на two days later (два дня спустя).

Yesterday (вчера) меняется на the day before (накануне).

The day before yesterday (позавчера) меняется на two days before (двумя днями ранее).

Month ago (месяц назад) меняется на month before (за месяц до этого).

Last month (в прошлом месяце) меняется на the previous month (в предыдущем месяце).

Here (здесь) меняется на there (там).

7. Замените предложения в прямой речи на предложения в косвенной речи, произведя необходимые изменения.

1. “We are not talking about any kind of censorship on the Internet”, the President says.

2. The committee spokesman said a week ago, “The Investigative Committee is forming a department that will investigate crimes committed by police officers.”

3. A lawyer said to Mr. Woodworth, “The most severe punishment now for this criminal offence is life imprisonment.”

4. “Please, don’t interrupt me”, the associate lawyer said to his client yesterday.

5. “We have been providing here the highest quality legal assistance to our clients”, said the in-house lawyer.

6. The Interior Minister says, “Russian law should punish police officers more severely than ordinary people for illegal activities”.

7. The lawyer speaking about the Graduate Recruitment Programme said, “I will outline what we can offer to these employees.”

8. The judge said, “The owner of the Perm night-club where 156 people were killed in a fire has been hiding in Spain before being arrested and extradited to Russia.”

9. Moscow’s mayor said, “I will focus on maintaining social stability and solving transportation problems.”

10. The President said, “The Internet may increase the quality of state governance”.

Вопросительные предложения в косвенной речи. Indirect questions

1. Если прямая речь является вопросительным предложением, то при обращении в косвенную речь, этот вопрос становится придаточным предложением (косвенным вопросом).

2. При обращении вопросительного предложения в косвенный вопрос вопросительный знак опускается, а вопросительный порядок слов заменяется на порядок слов в повествовательном предложении (т.е. сказуемое ставится после подлежащего и т.д.) Общие вопросывводятся словамиif, whether.

Example: The student of the law academy asks, “Is the Supreme Court the highest judicial organ of the state?” – The student of the law academy asks if the Supreme Court is the highest judicial organ of the state.

Example: “Did the Higher Regional Court uphold the decision on the appeal?” he asked. – He asked whether the Higher Regional Court had upheld the decision on the appeal.

3. Вопросы, начинающиеся с вопросительного слова или группы слов: who, which,whose, when, why, how many, how much, how long, называются специальными вопросами и при преобразовании в косвенную речь превращаются в придаточные предложения, где данные слова становятся союзами и служат для присоединения придаточного предложения к главному.Остальныеизмененияпроизводятсясогласновышеизложеннымправилам.

Example: The deputy minister asked, “What law enforcement bodies will take part in this operation?” –The deputy minister asked what law enforcement bodies would take part in that operation.

Example: Mr. Brown asked, “How many justices of the peace will be trying this case?” –

Mr. Brown asked how many justices of the peace would be trying that case.

8. Замените вопросительные предложения в прямой речи на предложения в косвенной речи, произведя необходимые изменения.

1. The professor asked, “Is English law based on common law tradition?”

2. The first-year student asked the professor yesterday, “Do barristers give expert opinions on legal matters?”

3. Tom Brown asked his groupmate, “Why is it important for judges to be independent of the government?”

4. The correspondent asked last week, “How long did it take the FBI experts to perform these scientific examinations?”

5. The defence counsel asked the prosecution, “How many defendants were convicted of illegal weapons possession?”

6. The clerk of the court asked, “Did the defendant plead guilty to any charges?”

7. The head of the court’s press service was asked, “Has the appellate panel found any procedural violations?”

8. Tom Brown asked his lawyer, “Who backed a request for bail?”

9. The judge was asked at the press conference, “Why was the charge of murder reduced to manslaughter?”

10. The Federal Security Service officer was asked, “When was an explosive device found on board a passenger jet flying from Moscow to Grozny?”

6 Key Ways the British Legal System Differs From the Rest of the World

At a glance, most developed countries seem reasonably alike.

You should also read…

You’ll notice the difference in architecture and language between Seoul, San Juan or Vienna, but there are significant similarities: people will be driving the same sort of cars, wearing the same sorts of clothes, and walking down streets with many of the same multinationals on them. Imagine trying to find someone who said they were standing at a crossroads with an H&M, a McDonald’s, a Zara and a Starbucks on each corner. They could be in virtually any developed country on Earth.
But scratch the surface and you’ll find that the legal systems underpinning these nations can differ to a remarkable extent. Because of the size and influence of the British Empire – covering a quarter of the world’s population and nearly a third of its land area at its height – many countries have legal systems that are based on the British one. Yet even despite this massive influence around the world, the British legal system retains many peculiarities. In this article, we look at how the British legal system differs from other systems around the world, including instances in which it is nearly unique.

1. Britain has an unwritten constitution

Probably the oddest thing about the British legal system is that Britain has an unwritten constitution. That’s something the UK shares with just four other countries: Israel, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Canada, and even those countries have more of a written constitution than Britain does. For instance, Canada has the Constitution of Canada, it’s just that this declares the Canadian constitution to be “similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”; in other words, they have a written constitution to declare that their constitution is unwritten. Saudi Arabia’s constitution has been declared to be the Qur’an, which is decidedly written if not exactly a constitution in the conventional sense. It’s worth noting that while two of the four other countries with unwritten constitutions are former British colonies, that leaves an awful lot of other former British colonies that decided that the UK was not a good model to follow in this regard.

Copy of Magna Carta, held in the British Library.

So what does Britain have instead of a written constitution, and why? It’s worth looking at those former colonies again to understand the answer. Most countries have a foundation of some kind, whether that’s a declaration of independence or a revolution. At that point, the terms by which the country was to be governed were set out, making it clear that this would be different from the governance of the past. But in the era of the nation-state Britain hasn’t had anywhere to declare independence from, and hasn’t been very good at making revolutions stick either. Instead, the principles that might derive from the constitution in other countries are drawn from laws passed by Parliament and court decisions, updated over time. These are written, but not all gathered in the same place; the defence of a principle might draw on a variety of legislation from the Magna Carta to the Human Rights Act.

2. Britain’s legal system is adversarial

While Britain’s unwritten constitution didn’t catch on globally, the idea of an adversarial legal system has proven to be more popular, and it’s used in the majority of countries that were once under British rule. The alternative is an inquisitorial system, although some countries use a combination of both (for instance, in the USA, serious crimes are tried using an adversarial system, but more minor misdemeanors are sometimes tried using an inquisitorial system).

The role of the judge differs in an adversorial system.

The difference is in how a trial is pursued. In an adversarial system, the judge or jury are entirely neutral. The judge may request clarification, but is not involved in finding evidence or questioning witnesses. The prosecution and the defence each put forward their case in front of the judge and jury, and the judge’s role is to ensure fairness between the two sides. The truth in a criminal trial is found when the judge or jury decides that the defendant is either not guilty, or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In civil law it depends on the balance of probabilities.
In an inquisitorial system, by contrast, the judge plays much more of an active role in seeking the truth; he or she is involved in questioning witnesses and preparing evidence. There is also no difference in the standard of proof required between civil and criminal law. A perceived disadvantage in an adversarial system is that if the prosecution and defence are not evenly matched (for instance, if one side has access to greater resources), then the outcome might not be just. On the other hand, the inquisitorial system can be more open to bias.

3. Britain uses a common law system

The other big divide between systems across the world is the divide between common law and civil law systems. The map below shows where each can be found, with civil law in blue, common law in red, religious law in yellow and mixed systems in brown:

Civil law countries – as the map shows – cover more of the world’s landmass, but common law countries encompass more of the global population. Britain falls into the latter category.
The preference for a common law system could be classified as part of the same tendency to prefer not to write things down. Our law is defined, for the most part, not by statute but by case law; if you want to prove that someone committed murder, the definition of murder has been established by previous cases, and has only subsequently been drawn up in a statute or a code. Judges then abide by precedent set by higher courts. This makes common law more flexible, as judges can adapt case law to circumstances as appropriate, rather than needing to rely on codes that may have been written at a time when the relevant circumstances could not have been thought of.
Civil law systems, by contrast, involve everything being written down in codes and statutes. Want to know what defines murder? Look to the relevant statute. Past judgements don’t have the force that they have in common law, but instead apply as guides. This makes for a less flexible but more stable system that can be more straightforward; there’s no need to trawl through case law to find the answer to a question; you just need to find and interpret the relevant code or statute instead.

4. Britain uses a jury system

From the discussion of inquisitorial and adversarial systems above, you’ll already have seen that the use of judges and juries in Britain can be different from other countries around the world. But there may be more differences than you realise.
Trial by a jury of one’s peers is an ancient right and tradition in the UK. In the early Middle Ages, trial by jury involved 12 men of good standing assessing the crime, taking on the role of finding evidence as well as ruling on the evidence presented in the trial. This was further developed by Henry II in the 12th century, and affirmed in the Magna Carta, which stated that no fines for criminal offences would be imposed “except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood”.

The defining point of juries is that they are drawn from members of the general public.

By the 17th century, juries had ceased being involved in finding out the facts of the case, and were tasked solely with deciding whether the defendant was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, while the judge was responsible for advising the jury on what the relevant law was. The jury system is seen as an integral part of the legal system, even though only 1% of criminal cases go before a jury; among the general public in the UK, juries are more trusted than judges, magistrates or government ministers, and the right to a jury trial is seen as more important even than the right to political protest.
Yet other countries operate significantly different systems. In some countries, such as France, the jury and the judge sit together in order to determine guilt, while in others, the decision is entirely down to a judge or panel of judges. In the UK, the use of juries is seen as a valuable check to government power and as a means of embedding law within the community. Arguments against juries suggest that they may not have the knowledge to understand the complex problems they are presented with, and may be swayed by their own prejudices.

5. Britain has a dualist approach to international law

With the Brexit debate still rumbling on, Britain’s approach to international law is more relevant than ever. The key division between states is the choice of a monist or dualist system. In a monist system, whenever the country accepts international law – for instance by signing up to a treaty – that law is automatically incorporated in national laws. Any national laws that contradict the newly-signed international law are treated as void.

One law can risk making another obsolete.

By contrast, in a dualist system, international law has to be translated into national law before it applies – so the country might sign up to a treaty but the law deriving from that treaty would have no effect until it had been translated into national law first. This can cause problems for international law if the country stalls on translating a treaty. It also causes problems if there are contradictions between international and national law, as national law passed subsequently to the incorporation of the international law can contradict and supercede the international law – which might lead to the country being in violation of its treaty to implement that international law.
An example might be that a country signs up to a human rights treaty that guarantees freedom of assembly, and then incorporates the relevant law into its own legal system. A subsequent government then passes a law that bans individuals from congregating in groups of more than three. This would breach the obligations of the human rights treaty. In a purely monist system, this could not occur, as international law would automatically take precedence (though there are very few real-world examples of purely monist states; most states that are essentially monist still have some dualist elements). Nonetheless, in international law there’s no preference for monism or dualism; the country’s own traditions are respected.

6. In Britain, parliament is sovereign

Parliamentary Sovereignty seeks to put power in the hands of many, rather that in those of one despotic ruler.

the despotism of previous monarchs was forever at an end, and the powers of the monarchy were gradually reduced. By the late 17th century, parliamentary sovereignty had been enshrined in law. Britain isn’t unique in this respect; parliamentary sovereignty also holds in Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand and Jamaica among others.
But more common is popular sovereignty, in which the people are declared to be sovereign – that’s the case in the USA, Ireland and France, for example, and tends to be the preferred mode of countries that declared independence from a colonial power, or went through a revolution. Popular sovereignty declares that the power of a state and a government only exists through the consent of the people. In practice, there’s no difference between this and the situation in countries in which Parliament is sovereign, as Parliament is elected by the democratic will of the people. And of course, a dictator can declare that the people are sovereign when they are in fact nothing of the sort.

These different facets of the British legal system paint a larger picture: of a country with a great deal of trust in its institutions, such that its people are happy for Parliament, not themselves, to be declared sovereign, and for the constitution to remain unwritten. But they also present a picture of a country where legal authority figures are balanced by the involvement of the people, whether that’s the lesser role of the judge in adversarial trials, or the importance given to juries. When given a choice between trusting the expertise of a judge or the wisdom of the public, it’s clear which one the British prefer.
Image credits: big ben; legal systems of the world map; dorset beach; magna carta; gavel; time lapse busy street; torn-up paper; houses of parliament.