Skip to main content

Magna Carta: a Precedent For Recent Constitutional Change


By Lord Woolf
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey

In Brief

790 years ago, John, the King of England was having a little local difficulty with his barons. His attempts to defend his extensive dominions across the Channel, including Normandy and a considerable proportion of western France, had been a disaster. This was despite the exorbitant demands that he had made of his subjects. The taxes he had imposed were extortionate. There had been ruthless reprisals against defectors. The administration of justice for which he was responsible could with generosity be described as capricious. Instead of depending on the traditional establishment for his advisers and confidants, John looked to “new men”, who wielded immense power. Today no doubt the media would describe them as “John's cronies”. In the world of politics, little changes.

John's barons became increasingly disaffected. They knew John needed their support for his further military adventures in France. Not to lose an opportunity, in January 1215, the barons collectively decided upon industrial action. They insisted that, as a condition of their support, John execute a charter that recognised their liberties as a safeguard against further arbitrary behaviour on the part of the King.

In order to press home their cause, the barons took up arms against the King. In May 1215 they captured London. England was on the brink of being engulfed in civil war. Instead of allowing this to happen, both sides of the dispute behaved in an exemplary manner. If they had been litigants before our courts, they would have received my unqualified commendation for deciding to rely on Alternative Dispute Resolution, or as lawyers say today ADR, as an alternative to battle to the death.

On the 10th of June 1215, they met at Runnymede and, in the meadow, compromised their differences and agreed terms which were outlined in the Articles of the Barons to which the King's great seal was attached on 15th June 1215. The immediate result was that the barons renewed their oath of allegiance and once more supported the King in his endeavours in France.

You can settle disputes but there is no guarantee the settlement will be honoured. In the past Pope Innocent III had his own disputes with John. John had refused to accept the Pope's candidate, Stephen Langton, as Archbishop of Canterbury when the previous archbishop died. Relations between the Pope and John broke down and John was for a time excommunicated by the Pope. However, John had by the time of the meeting with the Barons at Runnymede already settled his dispute with the Pope and had been rehabilitated. Langton had become Archbishop and had played a part in creating the Charter.

However, no sooner was the Charter sealed than Innocent III, encouraged by John, intervened. He condemned the Charter as exacted by extortion and declared it was of no validity whatsoever.

John needed no more encouragement not to observe the Charter into which he had freely entered. John reneged on his commitments to surrender castles, borrowed money to hire foreign troops, and rallied his forces to subdue the nobles. Fortunately for us and for history John was prevented by ill health from pursuing his plans and his early death in October 1216 put an end to his double dealing. The Charter survived and this, for those times, was a remarkable outcome.

But this does not explain why we are gathered here today, precisely 790 years after the document which in due course became known as Magna Carta was sealed, or why we are due to reconvene annually over the next 9 years until 2015, the 800th Anniversary of what happened in Runnymede in June 1215.

What I have said enables me to bring to a conclusion the first of the ten lectures on the relevance of Magna Carta today.

Last year, all around the world in both the civil and common law jurisdictions, including this country, celebrations were held to mark the bi-centenary of the Code Civile. The Code Civile is the procedural code which has served civil jurisdictions so well for 200 years. In the common law world, there is nothing comparable to the Code Civile. Even if there had been, it is doubtful whether we would have celebrated it in the same way as France did. The French rightly saw the Code Civile as part of France's contribution to the legal systems of the world.

Hitherto, we have not sufficiently promoted the contribution of this country to the establishment of a world governed by the rule of law. The common law has spread and provided a contribution to justice, day in and day out, to about one third of the population of the world. It has influenced other systems of justice. There is no code to which we can draw attention.

However, Magna Carta is a symbol for the values of the common law. Magna Carta is also remarkable because it is such a historic statement of the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

The solution to a little local difficulty 790 years ago has become more important today than it has ever been. It is important that its 8th centenary should be celebrated in a manner that is worthy of what was achieved in Runnymede on the 15th June 1215. While I do not congratulate the Trust and Royal Holloway on their choice of the first speaker, I do commend their efforts to ensure the 8th Centenary will mark the important contributions of this country to establishing the rule of law which I have attempted to identify.

Paneir's view:

You can view this wonderful article at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law/magna_carta_a_precedent_for_recent_constitutional_change.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Smart Security, Free Society: Malaysia’s Data Dilemma

In today’s digitally driven world, national security is no longer confined to borders or traditional threats. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and asymmetric warfare have become the new frontiers of conflict. Malaysia, strategically located in Southeast Asia and increasingly exposed to regional tensions and internal vulnerabilities, must strengthen its security apparatus. However, doing so must not come at the cost of civil liberties. Malaysia can enhance its security strategy by leveraging insights from advanced data platforms like those pioneered by Palantir Technologies, while maintaining strong democratic oversight to safeguard the fundamental freedoms protected by the Federal Constitution. Palantir Technologies, a U.S.-based company, gained prominence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Its core software, Gotham, was designed to integrate fragmented intelligence and provide real-time, actionable insights to military and intelligence agencies. Over the years,...

Syringe Attacks in Malaysia and France: Random Violence or Terrorism? - Part 3

The syringe attack on the 12-year-old son of Pandan MP and former Economy Minister, Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, has shaken Malaysia. What initially appeared as a rare and bizarre incident now echoes a disturbing pattern witnessed abroad, notably in France. In June 2025, during the Fête de la Musique festival, over 145 people across France reported being pricked with syringes in crowded public areas. In both cases, the weapon of fear was not a gun or bomb but a syringe. When viewed together, the Rafizi incident and the mass needle attacks in France reveal an alarming global trend of unconventional, psychological violence that leaves behind not just physical uncertainty but emotional trauma. The question we must now ask is: are these acts simply random criminality, or should they be treated with the gravity of terrorist attacks? A Pattern Beyond Borders In France, the attacks spanned multiple cities, with 13 confirmed cases in Paris alone. Victims included women, men, and even min...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.