Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
The meaning of R is Regina (Queen). This is confusing me. Wasn't the case brought by 'an individual(s) v the government'? Why is the title 'government (individual) v government'?
united-kingdom case-citations
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
The meaning of R is Regina (Queen). This is confusing me. Wasn't the case brought by 'an individual(s) v the government'? Why is the title 'government (individual) v government'?
united-kingdom case-citations
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55
add a comment |
Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
The meaning of R is Regina (Queen). This is confusing me. Wasn't the case brought by 'an individual(s) v the government'? Why is the title 'government (individual) v government'?
united-kingdom case-citations
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
The meaning of R is Regina (Queen). This is confusing me. Wasn't the case brought by 'an individual(s) v the government'? Why is the title 'government (individual) v government'?
united-kingdom case-citations
united-kingdom case-citations
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
asked Mar 28 at 9:16
user24985user24985
1635
1635
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user24985 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55
add a comment |
2
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55
2
2
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases.
Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user24985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38516%2fwhy-is-millers-case-titled-r-miller%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases.
Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
add a comment |
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases.
Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
add a comment |
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases.
Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
The Queen (or King) is not the government; she represents the State. The difference is often ignored by ministers, but is important particularly in constitutional cases.
Miller began as Miller v Home Office, a judicial review case. When it became clear that the question was what powers the government actually had in a certain situation, the Supreme Court decided that constitutional points should be argued by, effectively, an amicus curiae on behalf of the state, with government lawyers defending their own viewpoint (and other interested parties intervening). This made it, in their view, a case of the state versus the government, with 'Miller' being either an acknowledgement that the applicant remained a party or a means of distinguishing this case from all the other "R. -v- Government" cases over the years, depending on your point of view.
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
answered Mar 28 at 10:36
Tim LymingtonTim Lymington
2,9261627
2,9261627
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
add a comment |
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
3
3
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
Thank you for addressing my confusion. Is there an example to how the difference is often ignored by ministers?
– user24985
Mar 28 at 11:50
2
2
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
@user24985: Ministers are, after all members of Her Majesty's government, so often the government and its ministers do act on behalf of the Crown. They just aren't the only people who act on behalf of the Crown. So sometimes the difference between Crown and government genuinely is negligible. Other times ministers maybe lack a little humility or overlook their own legal limitations, which I suspect is what Tim's alluding to. They should note that although R stands for Regina/Rex, it still means for the Crown. Not personally for the Queen, and not specifically for the government.
– Steve Jessop
Mar 28 at 23:45
add a comment |
user24985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user24985 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38516%2fwhy-is-millers-case-titled-r-miller%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
N.B. The linked Wikipedia article gives the "full name" as "R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union"
– owjburnham
Mar 28 at 13:55