The Wikipedia article on Elizabeth II states the following:
What does it mean to “have no title to sue the Crown”? This is one of those cases where I understand each word separately but the meaning of the sentence as a whole completely escapes me.
To have “title to sue” means “to be entitled to begin legal action”. MacCormick and Hamilton had no title to sue, because they had not suffered any loss or damage from the adoption of this particular royal title, and the Queen had no legal obligation towards them to adopt the title they wanted.
“The Crown”, in this context, just means “The State”.
I should point out that this is a Scots law question, not a UK one, and my (non-professional) knowledge is mainly confined to English law.
So, in layman’s terms, they were wrong? The Queen’s title was not a breach of the Act of Union, or the queen would have had a legal obligation?
OK, it’s ignorance-fighting time. I thought that the UK equalled England plus Scotland plus Wales plus Northern Ireland plus various tiny islands, remnants of the Empire and so forth, and that the UK had one law for the lot of it. Untrue?
Scotland has always retained a separate legal system from England & Wales, and those of Northern Ireland and overseas territories are separate again. The highest court in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary, not the English High Court in London.
However, until recently, Westminster had the power to create laws covering all territories. The newish Scottish Parliament has taken most of these powers, but is still subject to European legislation. The ongoing difficulties in Northern Ireland include the handing over of legislative power from the Northern Ireland Office in London to the elected assembly in Belfast.
It does, but there are different laws in different countries of the union. It’s divided up into Scotland, England-and-Wales (until the recent creation of the Welsh parliament), and Northern Ireland. The other places, such as the Channel Islands and others (semi-including the Isle of Man), are different still. Not too sure of the details, but the government of the UK, which is based in London, makes laws that supersede those of Scotland and NI, but simultaneously make up the laws of England. Though the current government has made steps to allow greater autonomy for the ‘regions’.
Ah, beaten to it. I defer to GorillaMan’s more informative post.
Nitpick - Wales doesn’t have a parliament, but an ‘assembly’ with much-reduced powers (no tax decisions, for instance). I’ve now got a comic routine buzzing in my head and I can’t remember who it’s by - Eddie Izzard, perhaps?
The Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and most other territories (Bermuda, the Falklands etc.) have complete independence of their internal affairs. Generally they do make use of the High Court as a final arbiter, but not within the English legal system but as an option open to a member of the Commonwealth. Other countries, such as Jamaica, also do this, which has led to the controversial situation where English judges have had to rule in capital cases.
Okay, you have to have “standing” (U.S. term) or “title” (Scottish term) to institute a lawsuit, and to have that, you have to show that the proposed action you’re proposing to sue about impinges on you in some concrete way, “injures” you in a legal sense (which is of course broader than physical injury). “The Crown” is a nebulous concept something like “the Presidency” meaning Elizabeth II but in her capacity as monarch and including her servants and agents, which can go so far as to mean the entire Government in certain circumstances.
Remember that Mrs. Philip Mountbatten is not the second queen regnant in Scotland with the regnal name of Elizabeth, but the first, Henry VIII’s daughter never having reigned over Scotland.
So essentially these two Scottish nationalists were suing to prevent the Queen “in her official capacity” from using the “style” Elizabeth II in Scotland, where she is not, historically, “Elizabeth the Queen, second of that name,” and the courts said that they had no standing to sue her in that capacity. And this was based on Scottish law, the which I’m sure has been gone into in sufficient depth already.
They lost, and the Court gave 2 separate reasons in it’s ruling.
This part dismisses their suit because they have no reason to sue in the first place. As Tevildo says, they failed to show that they personally were hurt by this action by the Queen. And that is a prerequisite in Court. If John cheats Fred in a business deal, you can’t sue John, Fred has to do the suing. This ruling is basically a judicial way of saying ‘mind your own business’.
In this part, the Court goes on to say that they were wrong anyway. The Court rules that the Queen has the right to call herself any name (number) that she wants, and that there is nothing in the Act of Union that prohibits this.
I was under the impression that one of those details was that the MPs who represent constituencies in England (but not in Wales) made legislation which covered just England but not Wales, and this was in sessions which did not include any of the MPs from the areas with devolved assemblies (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). IOW, a resident of Scotland would have an MP in London and an AM (is that the term?) in Edinburgh while a residentof England would have one person performing the functions of MP (for UK representation) and AM (for England representation).
I’m afraid this is pretty much all incorrect. Take a look here for the situation with Scotland. And little legislation can affect England but not Wales. (FWIW, ‘MSP’ for the Scottish Parliament, and ‘AM’ is correct for the Welsh Assembly)
Let’s say the Act of Union did prohibit certain styles. Is there anyone who would have title to sue? It’s not like anybody was hurt by it.
If an Act did prohibit certain styles, the adoption of a forbidden one wouldn’t be legally possible in the first place, as the act would then contain an explicit restriction on the Royal Prerogative. (Incidentally, this sort of thing would have been in the Act of Settlement (1701) rather than the Act of Union (1707)). It would require a new Act of Parliament passed through normal parliamentary procedures to remove this restriction.
If the Accession Council attempted to declare an invalid style without such an act - hmm. Not sure what would happen then. However, it would certainly be a legislative rather than a judicial issue; Parliament, or some section of it, would formally reject the Council’s proclamation, rather than a court declaring it to be illegal.
A slight nitpick if I might. The High Court of Justiciary is usally the supreme criminal court for Scotland. Appeals under the Human Rights Act and Devolution Acts can go a step further and lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which make up a very narrow amount of criminal case law, but are important in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights requirement that you use up all domestic remedies before you can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
At first instance in civil matters (which the OP’s case would be) cases are heard in the Outer Chamber of the Court of Session and appeals go to the Inner Chamber of the Court of Session, and then to the House of Lords which continues to function as the supreme civil court for Scotland.
Wouldn’t it be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, not the High Court? The High Court only has jurisdiction in England and Wales - it’s the Judicial Committee that has jurisdiction to hear appeals from outside the U.K.
Sorry, yes, you’re right. I should’ve said that they use the Judicial Committee as the highest court in such situations.