united-kingdom legal-citation
Why is Miller&#39;s case titled R (Miller)?
<p>Why is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union" rel="noreferrer">Miller's case</a> titled R (Miller)?</p>

<p><em>R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union</em></p>

<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case#Designation_and_citation" rel="noreferrer">meaning of R</a> 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'?</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p><em>Miller</em> 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 <em>amicus curiae</em> 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. </p>

<p>The accepted answer is, unfortunately, quite wrong. In particular, the notation &quot;R (Miller)&quot; does not arise from anything the Supreme Court decided. You can see the <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first instance judgment</a> is also brought by the Queen.</p>
<p>The modern &quot;application for judicial review&quot; grew out of a process whereby certain courts could issue writs (for example &quot;mandamus&quot; - now a &quot;mandatory order&quot;; &quot;certiorari&quot; - now a &quot;quashing order&quot;; or prohibition). The history is complicated, but these all come to be classified (before the modern era) as &quot;prerogative writs&quot; because they are exercises of the Royal prerogative.</p>
<p>So the process was for the Crown to ask the court to make the writ; but obviously the Crown would usually be acting on someone else's request. In older sources you will see the notation &quot;R v <em>name of minister etc</em> <strong>ex parte</strong> <em>name of applicant</em>&quot;.</p>
<p>You will see that in the High Court, <em>Miller</em> had the claimant &quot;The Queen&quot; and then &quot;on the application of Gina Miller&quot;. The Queen is the fictional claimant, but because Gina Miller applied for judicial review. This is abbreviated to &quot;R (Miller)&quot; in short citations.</p>
