Talk:R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hearing[edit]

The content of the section "Hearing" is mainly derived from Brexit[1], where the text has been trimmed.[2] Qexigator (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Could anyone help out an American? How would this case name be spoken aloud within the UK legal system? "Crown against Secretary of State"? "Miller and Secretary of State"? Telos (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. When speaking we usually get by colloquially with (in this case) "Miller and Secretary of State", but the name, like the law in question, may become clearer when we finally have the judgment of the Supreme Court on appeal, and the up to date law books for students and practitioners which will soon be appearing. If you are interested, the SC can be viewed at the website.[3] Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very helpful! Telos (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a law student and because of the slightly complex way the case is listed, the pronunciation is a bit strange. The Miller matter is spoken as "The Queen on the Application of Miller and Dos Santos and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union". In the Northern Irish cases (the McCord and Agnew matters), they are spoken as "In the matter of the Northern Ireland references". --The Historian (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find what you are looking for by following up links and web-searches to the law reports, and the relevant devolution acts, and, of course, legal text books. Qexigator (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Gina Miller[edit]

WP:BLP1E - notability is from court case (event) - all sources are about bio behind the court case topic (with minor exceptions about husband, and primary for her foundation) Widefox; talk 00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn although it's clear WP:RECENTISM to think this BLP is notable (notability is clearly solely from court case, and we have WP:NEWSPRIMARY) checking BLP1E it doesn't satisfy 2. and 3. so should stand on it's own merit per WP:ten year test. Widefox; talk 11:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of notability is due to BLP1E policy with this topic being the "1E". Would you oppose a redirect, what about a brief mention of the the party involved in this case, or suggest a better target? There's no De Keyser's Royal Hotel topic/redirect and it isn't a BLP so failing to see the relevance of that example TBH. Polydore de Keyser is clearly notable (plus not living or 1E). (WP:OTHERSTUFF comes to mind.) Widefox; talk 01:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article started 3 November, Miller's 4 November 2016 and the latter is now linked in this article from her name. Her notability derives from her being the lead party in the legal challenge and as a result her background became of interest to the public and has had much publicity. In that sense, we may surmise that her bio could be of more interest to the general public than, say Lord Pannick's, her advocate, who is notable for other reasons, or than of the judges, who are notable ex officio. Qexigator (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically her notability is explicitly WP:NOTINHERITED from the court case. The fact that it's WP:USEFUL also is not persuasive. My understanding of BLP1E is that as she initiated the case, and is not a low-profile individual that BLP1E doesn't apply. Widefox; talk 11:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: agreed with Qexigator's "leading/landmark case, in which the party's bio has no place". If Gina Miller is deemed no notable enough, her biography should simply be deleted. Rama (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Constitutional ramifications of the case will clearly have long term notability. Miller can also reasonably be assumed to have long term personal notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this case is so important that she has gained a lot of personal attention, which wont go away ever either. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 November 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union → R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – New or corrected or both traditional or "non-neutral" case citation now given, assigned or confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) [4]. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should have the name as per above-linked Supreme Court notice. Qexigator (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and the Supreme Court notice cited in it. The words "on the application of" should be omitted because those words are not included in the common name of judicial review cases in England & Wales. MrStoofer (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this seems obvious and non-controversial. Do we need to wait a whole week to fix it? (Not like it matters.) —ajf (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyvio notice[edit]

The supposed copyvio text of direct quotes from the court's judgment, seems to be surplus to the article's requirements, and will be superseded in a few weeks by the hearing and judgment of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Dos Santos[edit]

Who or what is "Dos Santos"? --Bogger (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The party named in Reference 1 of the article as the second claimant. Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All there is is a name. But who is s/he, what is their interest in the case, business owner/immmigrant/civil rights campaigner ...? Bogger (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The case is about the law, not the private parties. The parties could be Jane Doe and Richard Doe, or as some of them are "AB, KK, PR". The sources and links give sufficient information. The link given in comment below is now added to the article's current version, but Dos Santos or anyone may choose to delete it. Qexigator (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source has some more information (and a spelling error in the headline). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

The article will need some further copy-editing/correcting when the current spate of edits has abated. Perhaps also, before long, there will be some citable comment from RS. Qexigator (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case name for infobox, and proposed new section[edit]

The case naming should be consistent with the case title etc shown in the linked SC judgment[5] and [6]. This shows that the judgment was formally listed in respect of three matters:

  • The appeal from the High Court: R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant)
  • The NI reference: REFERENCE by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland - In the matter of an application by Agnew and others for Judicial Review
  • Another NI reference: REFERENCE by the Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) – In the matter of an application by Raymond McCord for Judicial Review.

In respect of the appeal, three groups of lawyers are listed:

  • for the UK government (UK law officers and others, Instructed by The Government Legal Department))
  • for 1st respondent (Miller) (Instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP)
  • for 2nd respondent (Dos Santos) (Instructed by Edwin Coe LLP).

Others were listed as follows

  • for Attorney General for Northern Ireland (Instructed by Office of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland)
  • in NI Reference (Agnew and others) (Instructed by Jones Cassidy Brett Solicitors)
  • in NI Reference (SoS Northern Ireland) (Instructed by Crown Solicitor’s Office)
  • NI Reference (McCord) (Instructed by McIvor Farrell Solicitors)
  • 1st Interested Party (Pigney and others) (Instructed by Bindmans LLP)
  • 2nd Interested Party (AB and others) (Instructed by Bhatia Best)
  • 1st Intervener (Birnie and others) (Instructed by Croft Solicitors)
  • 2nd Intervener (Lord Advocate) (Instructed by Scottish Government Legal Directorate)
  • 3rd Intervener (Counsel General of Wales) (Instructed by Welsh Government Legal Services Department)
  • 4th Intervener (TWGB) (Written submissions only) (Instructed by Leigh Day)
  • 5th Intervener (Lawyers of Britain) (Written submissions only) (Instructed by Wedlake Bell LLP).

Given the legal and political issues involved, I propose to make a new section to contain this information, with the intent of showing the article's readers how the various interests were able to appear and be heard by the court, or make written submissions only. Qexigator (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now done.[7] Qexigator (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Press reaction to the high court judgement - image[edit]

§ Press reaction If other editors agree, I propose restoring the image [8] which was previously used in this article, showing the four newspaper headlines. It's important to show the broadsheets as well as the tabloids, they are all discussed in the text. Simply showing the Mail front page does not adequately get the message across about the breath of newspaper coverage attacking the judgement; it suggests it was a tabloid issue. The BBC reporoduce multiple newpaper front pages daily [9] so I do not see a NFC issue here as long as the article specifically discusses all four front pages, comapring and contrasting them. Whizz40 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Qexigator (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm biased here (I created and uploaded that image), but I feel the same way. The issue cited was using four different images is not really “minimal”. I don't know if anything can be done about it. —ajf (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion with Fastily at User talk:Fastily#Deleted image. The first step would be to get consensus here so I would welcome the views of other editors. Whizz40 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added images for three of the newspapers mentioned in the text,[10] pending restoration of Ajfweb's image added as Revision of 16:13, 4 November 2016[11] Qexigator (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is further reporting of the significance and relevance of this aspect of the article in the news today Attacks on judges undermine law - Supreme Court president, BBC. So that we can establish consensus, please indicate your views on restoring the four images per this caption: "The front pages of (clockwise from top-right) The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail on 4th November 2016, the day after the High Court decision." and discussing this in the text. Whizz40 (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not only "topical" as current news, but, npov, very much "on topic" of the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but please bear in mind my self-interest here. —ajf (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and ask for the file to be restored. Whizz40 (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: Based on the proposal and discussion above, request the image is restored for inclusion in this article. Whizz40 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, File:2016-11-04 UK newspaper covers re Article 50 prerogative case.png has been restored. Regards, FASTILY 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union&oldid=1211785803"