| MacCormick v Lord Advocate | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Inner House of the Court of Session |
| Decided | 30 July 1953 |
| Citation(s) |
|
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Outer House of the Court of Session |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting |
|
| Keywords | |
MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 was a Scottish constitutional law case and Scottish legal action on whether Queen Elizabeth II was entitled to use the numeral "II" as her regnal number in Scotland, as there had never been an earlier Elizabeth reigning in Scotland.
John MacCormick (the Rector of the University of Glasgow) and Ian Hamilton (then part of the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association) contested the right of Queen Elizabeth II to style herself 'Elizabeth II' within Scotland. [1] They claimed it was a breach of the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland, since Elizabeth I had been Queen of England but not of Scotland. The action was brought against the Crown, which was represented by the Lord Advocate, who is the most senior law officer in Scotland.
The petition first came before Lord Guthrie, sitting as Lord Ordinary in the Outer House (the court of first instance in the Court of Session). He dismissed it; this was appealed to the Inner House. The appeal was heard by the Lord President (Lord Cooper of Culross), Lord Carmont, and Lord Russell. There, MacCormick and Hamilton lost their case: it was held that the treaty had no provision concerning the numbering of monarchs—it was part of the royal prerogative, and that they had no title to sue the Crown. The Lord President did give his opinion that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law". The case was thus constitutionally interesting [2] as the Lord Advocate "conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom 'could not' repeal or alter [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the Act of Union. [3] However, the Lord President also held that "there is neither precedent nor authority of any kind for the view that the domestic Courts of either Scotland or England have jurisdiction to determine whether a governmental act of the type here in controversy is or is not conform to the provisions of a Treaty" and "it has not been shown that the Court of Session has authority to entertain the issue sought to be raised". [4]
The outcome of this case has had continuing relevance, most notably in 1999, when the British Parliament discussed the creation of the Scottish Parliament. It has been discussed in a number of later decisions of the courts, notably Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136, and the English case of Jackson v Attorney General, [2005] 3 WLR 733. [5]
Winston Churchill suggested that British sovereigns would use either the English or the Scottish number, whichever was higher. [6]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.
The Lord Chancellor, formally titled Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, is the highest-ranking traditional minister among the Great Officers of State in Scotland and England in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking the prime minister. The lord chancellor is appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister. Prior to the union of England and Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain, there were separate lord chancellors for the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. There were Lord Chancellors of Ireland until 1922.
The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland and constitutes part of the College of Justice; the supreme criminal court of Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary. The Court of Session sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh and is both a trial court and a court of appeal. The court was established in 1532 by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, and was initially presided over by the Lord Chancellor of Scotland and had equal numbers of clergy and laity. The judges were all appointed from the King's Council. As of May 2017, the Lord President was Lord Carloway, who was appointed on 19 December 2015, and the Lord Justice Clerk was Lady Dorrian, who was appointed on 13 April 2016.
Ian Robertson Hamilton KC was a Scottish lawyer and nationalist, best known for his part in the return of the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey to Arbroath Abbey in 1950.
Sir Donald Neil MacCormick was a Scottish legal philosopher and politician. He was Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the University of Edinburgh from 1972 until 2008. He was a Member of the European Parliament 1999–2004, member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, and officer of the Scottish National Party.
The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal. As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or in the adjacent former Sheriff Court building in the Old Town in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building. As an appeal court, the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. On one occasion the High Court of Justiciary sat outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. At Zeist the High Court sat both as a trial court, and an appeal court for the initial appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
In the United Kingdom, representative peers were those peers elected by the members of the Peerage of Scotland and the Peerage of Ireland to sit in the British House of Lords. Until 1999, all members of the Peerage of England held the right to sit in the House of Lords; they did not elect a limited group of representatives. All peers who were created after 1707 as Peers of Great Britain and after 1801 as Peers of the United Kingdom held the same right to sit in the House of Lords.
William Douglas Cullen, Baron Cullen of Whitekirk, is a former senior member of the Scottish judiciary. He formerly served as Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session, and was an additional Lord of Appeal in the House of Lords prior to the transfer of its judicial functions to the Supreme Court.
James Peter Hymers Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern, is a British lawyer. He served as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Advocate, and Lord Chancellor (1987–1997). He is a former active member of the House of Lords, where he sat as a Conservative. He retired from the House on 22 July 2022.
In the 1760s William Blackstone described the Fundamental Laws of England in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the First – Chapter the First : Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals as "the absolute rights of every Englishman" and traced their basis and evolution as follows:
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
William Watson, Baron Watson, was a Scottish lawyer and Conservative Party politician. He was Lord Advocate, the most senior Law Officer in Scotland, from 1876 to 1880, and was then appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.
Charles Eliot Jauncey, Baron Jauncey of Tullichettle, PC was a British judge and advocate. He was often praised as one of the finest legal minds of his generation in Scotland, and his legal opinions - both as a practising advocate and as a judge - commanded immense respect.
The Pillar Box War refers to a number of politically motivated acts of vandalism against post boxes in Scotland during the early 1950s in a dispute over the correct title in Scotland of the new British monarch, Elizabeth II or Elizabeth I.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.
John Herbert McCluskey, Baron McCluskey was a Scottish lawyer, judge and politician, who served as Solicitor General for Scotland, the country's junior Law Officer from 1974 to 1979, and as a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of Scotland's Supreme Courts, from 1984 to 2004. He was also member of the House of Lords from 1976 until his retirement in 2017.
MacCormick is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:
In United Kingdom constitutional law, prorogation is an act usually used to mark the end of a parliamentary session. Part of the royal prerogative, it is the name given to the period between the end of a session of the UK Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The average length of prorogation since 2000 is approximately 18 days. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved. The power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the monarch, on the advice of the Privy Council. Like all prerogative powers, it is not left to the personal discretion of the monarch but is to be exercised, on the advice of the prime minister, according to law.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.