MacCormick v Lord Advocate facts for kids
Quick facts for kids MacCormick v Lord Advocate |
|
|---|---|
.svg) |
|
| 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 | |
The case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate was an important legal challenge in Scotland back in 1953. It was all about whether Queen Elizabeth II could use the number "II" after her name in Scotland. Some people argued that she shouldn't, because there had never been a Queen Elizabeth I in Scotland before. This case explored interesting questions about Scottish law and the power of the monarchy.
Why the Case Happened
This legal case began because two people, John MacCormick and Ian Hamilton, disagreed with Queen Elizabeth II using "II" in Scotland. John MacCormick was the leader of the University of Glasgow at the time. Ian Hamilton was a student involved with a Scottish nationalist group.
They argued that using "Elizabeth II" broke the rules of the Act of Union 1707. This Act joined England and Scotland into one country. They pointed out that Elizabeth I had only been Queen of England, not Scotland. So, they believed the new Queen should simply be "Queen Elizabeth" in Scotland. They took their case to court against the Crown, which means the government. The Lord Advocate, Scotland's top legal officer, represented the Crown.
What the Court Decided
The case first went to a judge called Lord Guthrie. He decided that the case should not go forward. MacCormick and Hamilton then appealed this decision.
The appeal was heard by three senior judges in a higher court. These judges were Lord Cooper, Lord Carmont, and Lord Russell. MacCormick and Hamilton lost their case again.
The judges said that the Act of Union did not mention how monarchs should be numbered. They also said that deciding the monarch's title was part of the royal prerogative. This means it's a special power that belongs only to the monarch. The court also ruled that MacCormick and Hamilton did not have the right to sue the Crown over this matter.
Lord Cooper, one of the judges, made an interesting point. He said that the idea of sovereignty of Parliament (meaning Parliament has unlimited power) is mainly an English idea. He believed it didn't fully apply to Scottish constitutional law. This was important because the Lord Advocate agreed that Parliament could not change some "fundamental" parts of the Act of Union. However, Lord Cooper also said that courts in Scotland or England usually can't decide if a government action follows a treaty. He concluded that the court didn't have the power to decide on this specific issue.
Why This Case Still Matters
The decision in MacCormick v Lord Advocate has remained important over the years. It was discussed again in 1999 when the British Parliament created the Scottish Parliament.
Other court cases, like Gibson v Lord Advocate in 1975 and Jackson v Attorney General in England in 2005, have also referred to this case. It helps legal experts understand the limits of Parliament's power and the special powers of the monarch.
Interestingly, Winston Churchill, a former Prime Minister, once suggested a simple rule. He said that British monarchs should use whichever number was higher, whether it was the English or Scottish one.
See also
- Style of the British sovereign
- United Kingdom constitutional law
- Pillar Box War
