In response to Peter’s perceptive posting, I would like to ask a question about Miller from the perspective of a private lawyer who is trying to make sense of this.

Neither English court seems to mention standing. The Scottish proceedings were applications for judicial review.

My question is, is Miller itself a relator action? The English cases are styled “R (on the application of Miller) v the PM and others”; ie, the Queen is suing her own Prime Minister.

Traditionally a relator action would have been “R ex relatione Miller” but I thought that was perhaps a terminological update. 

If it were, this would explain why standing is not an issue, since the rights being asserted are essentially those of the Crown itself that its government behave properly.

But if it is a relator action, then (as Peter said) the A-G not only has to consent, but can discontinue it at any time, as I understood it, exactly because the rights being asserted are those of the Crown.

On the other hand if it is not, why is the proceeding brought in the name of the Crown, and what standing does Miller have?

I would be glad for any enlightenment!
Lionel Smith

 

 

 

 Thirdly, the Prime Minister’s accountability to Parliament does not in itself justify the conclusion that the courts have no legitimate role to play. That is so for two reasons. The first is that the effect of prorogation is to prevent the operation of ministerial accountability to Parliament during the period when Parliament stands prorogued. Indeed, if Parliament were to be prorogued with immediate effect, there would be no possibility of the Prime Minister’s being held accountable by Parliament until after a new session of Parliament had commenced, by which time the Government’s purpose in having Parliament prorogued might have been accomplished. In such circumstances, the most that Parliament could do would amount to closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. The second reason is that the courts have a duty to give effect to the law, irrespective of the minister’s political accountability to Parliament. The fact that the minister is politically accountable to Parliament does not mean that he is therefore immune from legal accountability to the courts.