To begin, the definition of a constitution has been presented by several constitutional theorists. For instance, Hilaire Barnett states that “The constitution of a state … forms the backcloth of government and its powers … [it] is a set of rules, written or unwritten, which identifies the principal institutions of the state, their powers and relationships with other state institutions and the relationship between government and citizen."1. It is commonly believed that the UK has an "unwritten" constitution. However, this is not entirely accurate as the majority of it is written, but in several documents rather than just one. For instance, hundreds of Acts of Parliament, legal rulings, and established customs make up the UK's uncodified constitution. Therefore, it can be concluded that the UK undoubtedly has a constitution. The question, however, still stands of whether the UK Constitution is supreme. When a constitution is regarded as supreme, it means that it is the highest source of law in that country and has the power to create or repeal any law without the possibility of legislation to be overruled by the courts. The constitutional law of the parliamentary democracy in the UK is based on the premise of parliamentary sovereignty. According to this theory, the legislative body of government is superior over all other bodies of government, including the executive and judicial bodies. Parliament alone, not the judiciary, has last say in all matters. Ultimately, under the 1998 Act, the judiciary does nothing more than conduct its constitutional responsibility of assessing and applying the law established by Parliament. They are limited to the authority granted to them by Parliament in the Human Rights Act of 1998. As a result, as Parliament is only one of the UK Constitution's principles, and the other principles, notably the judiciary, do not wield such power, it can be concluded that the UK Constitution is not supreme.