Ttyjfyk

Finding files for which a command fails

Typesetting a double Over Dot on top of a symbol

Is there a familial term for apples and pears?

How could a lack of term limits lead to a "dictatorship?"

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?

How is it possible for user's password to be changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)

Manga about a female worker who got dragged into another world together with this high school girl and she was just told she's not needed anymore

Can I find out the caloric content of bread by dehydrating it?

How can I plot a Farey diagram?

New order #4: World

Was there ever an axiom rendered a theorem?

Ideas for 3rd eye abilities

"My colleague's body is amazing"

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

Patience, young "Padovan"

Should the British be getting ready for a no-deal Brexit?

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?

Filling an area between two curves

Uplifted animals have parts of their "brain" in various locations of their body. Where?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

Why is Miller's case titled R (Miller)?

Would the UK still have to leave the EU if they changed their mind after invoking Article 50?Reasons for UK citizen to not get an Irish passport?Where to pay taxes if working remotely and freelancingWhy was the NHS able to prevent Charlie Gard's parents from taking their child to the US?Do any UK laws dictate how a person's title shall be determined on their passport?Why do Acts of the UK Parliament still start with a lengthy bombastic sentence?Could the UK “sue the EU” in a way which affects the Brexit settlement?Refusal to Accept Information in Certain FormsDoes Australia have the same rules regarding succession to the throne as the United Kingdom?Identity photographs under GDPR

12

1

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

share|improve this question

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

• 
  
  
  

  
  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 | 

12

1

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

share|improve this question

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

• 
  
  
  

  
  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

share|improve this question

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

share|improve this question

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

share|improve this question

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

asked Mar 28 at 9:16

user24985user24985

1635

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

16

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.

share|improve this answer

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 | 

Your Answer

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
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

16

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.

share|improve this answer

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 | 

16

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.

share|improve this answer

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.

share|improve this answer

answered Mar 28 at 10:36

Tim LymingtonTim Lymington

2,9261627

share|improve this answer

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