Is the distinction between Law and convention important? Can anyone please explain?

Answer 1

Of course. I will illustrate by an example:
By convention a city spends government funds to have a single religion party in the winter.
The law says that the city can not establish one religion over another. By spending money in support of one religion over another they "establish" that the supported religion has more merit than other religions.

For the people that will scream about Christmas parties, would your position change if the party was a Wicca Winter Solstice celebration?

Answer 2

The distinction between legal and procedural rules depend on the absence of direct coercive power to enforce conventions. A law does not fall into desuetude, yet a convention can dissapear if it is not followed for a significant period, or if it is broken without objection. Another difference is that laws emenate from Paliament and the courts. In the case of conventions there is a lack of an authoritive source which might provide for their interpretation. Moreover, a breach of the law does not call into question its existence or valify, but this is not so with conventions. Nor do individual laws rest upon consent - an unpopuar law or a widely disregarded law is nevertheless a valid law. But a convention is only valid if it is accepted as binding.

The distinction however, is nonetheless important because conventions provide the principles and values which form the context of the strict law. Thus conventions can be as important as laws; and some conventions may be more important that laws: whether it be convention in relation to the British constitution, for example those relating to the Monarch (e.g the royal perogative is only used on the advice of Ministers) or the role convention plays in the evolution of the law: particulaly judge made law.