0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co...
1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...
The most effective version is probably not the ability to sue for damages, but rather that if the highest court rules a law unconstitutional, anyone who voted in favor of it is ineligible to run for reelection. This would both get the perpetrators out of office and make them much more cautious about violating the rights of the population.
(At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliame...
definitely. why is this surprising? countries permit all sorts of unconscionable things (the US had slavery and only banned it "except as a punishment for crime", literally has the death penalty right now) and by definition legislatures turn things from "illegal" to "legal" and vice versa constantly. the US could re-legalise slavery via a constitutional amendment any time it wanted, Ireland could ban divorce again, Australia could un-repeal Section 127, etc etc.
the only difference in the UK is that there's no "basic law" / "constitution" that's harder to change than regular laws.
Unfortunately, this cuts both ways.