There are about 35,000 overseas students whom the Home Office accused of cheating in a government-approved English language test they were required to take as part of the process of applying for a renewal of their student visas. The allegations triggered a wave of dawn raids on student flats around the country.
About 2,500 students were subject to an enforced removal from the UK and another 7,500 left the country voluntarily after being warned that they faced arrest, detention and forced removal if they stayed. Thousands of those accused have spent years trying to prove their innocence.
Non codified. Not unwritten.
Every law passed by parliment is written down. And forms our consitution.
We just do not have a list of rules codified to limit the power of our parliment. The very opposite in fact.
As for the actual question. The fact we are a member of the ECHR means artical 6 enforces the same requirement.
My guess the UK HMRC will claim no one was charged of an offence. Just refused the right to remain.
As dumb as it sounds such ideas are common among all governments. We are not convicting you of anything. Just using our own sources to decide if you meet the requirements for us to accept your application.
If you disgree it is your option to charge us.
Then you do not have a constitution. That structure does not exist in your country. No more than a direct democracy has a parliament.
Injustices done through stupid word games are no less blatant or harmful. See also America’s hideous “civil forfeiture,” i.e., police stealing things. The simple fact is, the legal system has punished you, without opportunity to defend yourself. Denial of due process is an intolerable abuse no matter how it’s framed.
Having police knock down your door at the crack of dawn and then saying the state is just checking ‘no thank you’ is not a defensible claim - it should not be stated dryly or taken seriously.
A constitution is just a foundation of principals a community uses to define its path.
The US chosen principals do not define the word. Our form of government was called a Constitutional Monarchy long before the US existed. And we were far from the first.
Not that I in any way indicated I agree with how it works. Or any UK actions at all. We def have a lot of actions in our past and present I am not proud of.
But even a minimal knowledge of US history makes it clear your constitutional principals. Have not provented the same abuses of power every other nation faces at multiple point in its history.
The principals of your constitution are a nice idea. But in no way shape or form the pamcea to controlled power.