Cases - is it "versus" or "and"?

cathy427

Just wondering what is the correct way to say a case, on a course and two people are pronouncing them differently

The senior guys says McGee and Attorney General

The other lady says McGee versus Attorney General

An reason for the and? Is it somehow tied to latin or tradition? Just a way of speaking?
Thanks.

biko

Isn't "vs" the American way to say it?

234

cathy427 wrote: »

Just wondering what is the correct way to say a case, on a course and two people are pronouncing them differently

The senior guys says McGee and Attorney General

The other lady says McGee versus Attorney General

An reason for the and? Is it somehow tied to latin or tradition? Just a way of speaking?
Thanks.

You say "and"; it's just one of those things, no real reason as far as I know.

Also, "R" in English criminal cases should be read as "The Crown" (or "The King" / "The Queen" if you are really good at dates of monarchs.)

E.g. R v Brown reads "The Crown and Brown"

NoQuarter

Its written "-AND-" in the pleadings so it's "and". The citations always use "v" though.

johnnyskeleton

Irish (and english) pleadings and judgments say "and" (so yhe title reads "between: / joe bloggs / plaintiff / -and- / Mary bloggs / defendant"). American pleadings can say "versus" as far as I know. The Irish reports use "v.", presumably to save space.

So is "and" correct? Yes.
Is "versus" correct? Not officially.
Is it incorrect then? No more than calling a judge "Mi'lud*" or "Charleton J." Instead of "Mr. Justice Charleton".
Does anyone care? No, but you will look like a tweed jacket wearing pipe smoking academic or a Yank if you say "versus" in front of a judge, and will look like a no nothing no-it-all practising lawyer if you say "and" in the hallowed halls of trinity.

234 wrote:

Also, "R" in English criminal cases should be read as "The Crown" (or "The King" / "The Queen" if you are really good at dates of monarchs.)

E.g. R v Brown reads "The Crown and Brown"

Really? Is it not Rex/Regina. I accept that the prosecutor is a king/queen, but using the definite article implies some sort of allegiance to her royal maj.

*traditionally judges in Ireland were called "my lord" but some people thinking they are smart sometimes say "Mi'lud". There are a series of unmarked graves behind the bridewell for such people.

Tom Young

Ha - I wondered what those plots were for.

If R. v arises I say The Crown, or the State;

It's either Judge, or if I'm before certain Lord fan judges, I say The Court;

Some judges say v ... by the way.

Convention: is 'And' though - against works.

Victor

One does have to be careful though when there are multiple parties. Hence Smith & Others -and- Jones & Others

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Really? Is it not Rex/Regina. I accept that the prosecutor is a king/queen, but using the definite article implies some sort of allegiance to her royal maj.

Is it not that the case is being brought in the name of the Crown?

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

If R. v arises I say The Crown, or the State;

If you say Regina (in the English pronunciation rather than the Irish "redge-eena") really quickly, sometimes people think you're talking about lady parts.

It's either Judge, or if I'm before certain Lord fan judges, I say The Court;

Hey - just as long as it is "my lord" (two words) then we have no quarrel.

Some judges say v ... by the way.

Sure, but some judges think that the rules of evidence only apply in the central criminal court.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

Is it not that the case is being brought in the name of the Crown?

What crown? I recognise no such authority.

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What crown? I recognise no such authority.

Unavoidable not to open cases of persuasive authority where Irish law is underdeveloped. You may not recognise it as an authority, but naming it correctly and potentially as a persuasive, though non-binding authority would be useful.

Johnny of the family Skeleton.

johnnyskeleton

Tom Young wrote: »

Unavoidable not to open cases of persuasive authority where Irish law is underdeveloped. You may not recognise it as an authority, but naming it correctly and potentially as a persuasive, though non-binding authority would be useful.

Johnny of the family Skeleton.

Refusing to accord an title of royalty and simply referring to a party by its states name does not a freeman make.

cathy427

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does anyone care? No, but you will look like a tweed jacket wearing pipe smoking academic or a Yank if you say "versus" in front of a judge, and will look like a no nothing no-it-all practising lawyer if you say "and" in the hallowed halls of trinity.



.

Confused on this bit?
So you would say "and" in court
but
would NOT say "and" in trinity?

Maybe there was a joke in there I missed, why would you not use the court language in trinity?

NoQuarter

cathy427 wrote: »

Confused on this bit?
So you would say "and" in court
but
would NOT say "and" in trinity?

Maybe there was a joke in there I missed, why would you not use the court language in trinity?

Because the law students haven't realised that the term used is "and" yet.

johnnyskeleton

cathy427 wrote: »

Confused on this bit?
So you would say "and" in court
but
would NOT say "and" in trinity?

Maybe there was a joke in there I missed, why would you not use the court language in trinity?

Academic-only lawyers and practicing-only lawyers often believe that they have the monopoly on legal knowledge and tend to look down on the other group. There is a certain kind of academic lawyer that would insist on saying versus just to show that they are different (in their minds implicitly superior) to practicing lawyers. You know the type - so caught up teaching the development of the duty of care that they forget to explain what it actually is.

Peregrinus

It works like this:

Criminal matters:

Write “DPP v Young”; say “the DPP against Young” or (less formally) “DPP vee Young”
Write “R v Young”; say “The crown against Young” or (less formally) “Crown vee Young” or “R vee Young”

Civil matters:

Write “Young v Skeleton”; say “Young and Skeleton”

You never write or say “versus”, even though that is, in fact, what “v” stands for.

Dandelion6

biko wrote: »

Isn't "vs" the American way to say it?

You can say "vs" in American but it's more common just to say "v".

Tom Young

Peregrinus wrote: »

It works like this:

Criminal matters:

Write “DPP v Young”; say “the DPP against Young” or (less formally) “DPP vee Young”
Write “R v Young”; say “The crown against Young” or (less formally) “Crown vee Young” or “R vee Young”

Civil matters:

Write “Young v Skeleton”; say “Young and Skeleton”

You never write or say “versus”, even though that is, in fact, what “v” stands for.

Do you have a source or practice guide for this

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

It works like this:

Criminal matters:

Write “DPP v Young”; say “the DPP against Young” or (less formally) “DPP vee Young”
Write “R v Young”; say “The crown against Young” or (less formally) “Crown vee Young” or “R vee Young”

Civil matters:

Write “Young v Skeleton”; say “Young and Skeleton”

You never write or say “versus”, even though that is, in fact, what “v” stands for.

Never heard of a distinction for criminal cases. In fact, given that the Dpp isn't really "against" the accused, but merely presenting the evidence for the prosecution, I'm not sure that against makes sense.

Peregrinus

Tom Young wrote: »

Do you have a source or practice guide for this

It's what I was taught, back in the day (TCD JF Law, 1980; Legal Systems and Methods). Since this is a matter of usage, even in a conservative profession like the law the practice may have changed, but that's how it was then.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Never heard of a distinction for criminal cases. In fact, given that the Dpp isn't really "against" the accused, but merely presenting the evidence for the prosecution, I'm not sure that against makes sense.

For criminal cases the informal, voiced "vee" is in fact much more common, even in formal settings like courts, at least in Ireland. But a criminal matter would never be, e.g, "DPP and Skeleton", whereas "and" is standard for civil cases. I've never heard anyone talk of "Donoghue vee Stevenson", for example. It's always "Donoghue and Stevenson".

234

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Really? Is it not Rex/Regina. I accept that the prosecutor is a king/queen, but using the definite article implies some sort of allegiance to her royal maj.

*traditionally judges in Ireland were called "my lord" but some people thinking they are smart sometimes say "Mi'lud". There are a series of unmarked graves behind the bridewell for such people.

You could say Rex/Regina but since it would require you to know whether there was a king or queen on the throne at the time the prosecution was taken it's easier to use "The Crown".

234

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Academic-only lawyers and practicing-only lawyers often believe that they have the monopoly on legal knowledge and tend to look down on the other group. There is a certain kind of academic lawyer that would insist on saying versus just to show that they are different (in their minds implicitly superior) to practicing lawyers. You know the type - so caught up teaching the development of the duty of care that they forget to explain what it actually is.

Students in TCD are taught the "and" usage.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What crown? I recognise no such authority.

Doesn't matter whether you do or not. The court does, and that's what determines what "R" stands for in the name of the case.

Tom Young

Lawyers like getting their R in whenever possible ...

Grolschevik

Tom Young wrote: »

Lawyers like getting their R in whenever possible ...

And they know their Rs from their elbow.

johnnyskeleton

234 wrote: »

You could say Rex/Regina but since it would require you to know whether there was a king or queen on the throne at the time the prosecution was taken it's easier to use "The Crown".

It says it at the top of the judgment, plus if it was pre 52 it is Rex, post 52 Regina, if its 19th century or before Rex, but it doesn't really matter (and Vicky wasn't exactly a model of femininity). If you are quoting pre 19th century criminal law you might want to reconsider your position, but afaik it was only Lizzy 1 and mqos in the 17th century.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you do or not. The court does, and that's what determines what "R" stands for in the name of the case.

The Irish courts do not. If Lizzy stubbed her toe last year the pleadings would be "Elizabeth Windsor" or "Elizabeth England" or whatever she calls herself these days. Mind you, the first question to be asked of her is how, without being a citizen of an EU country or visa exempt country, she got past immigration control.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Irish courts do not. If Lizzy stubbed her toe last year the pleadings would be "Elizabeth Windsor" or "Elizabeth England" or whatever she calls herself these days. Mind you, the first question to be asked of her is how, without being a citizen of an EU country or visa exempt country, she got past immigration control.

Yes, of course. but if you're citing R -v- Smith, for example, that's an English case, heard in the English courts, and the "R" in the citation represents the crown, which is the prosecuting authority in English courts. Saying so does not imply that you accept that the British crown has any soveriegn authority over you, or over an Irish court, any more than citing the US Supreme Court Case of US -v- Lopez in an Irish court would imply that the United States has authority over you or the Irish court.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, of course. but if you're citing R -v- Smith, for example, that's an English case, heard in the English courts, and the "R" in the citation represents the crown, which is the prosecuting authority in English courts. Saying so does not imply that you accept that the British crown has any soveriegn authority over you, or over an Irish court, any more than citing the US Supreme Court Case of US -v- Lopez in an Irish court would imply that the United States has authority over you or the Irish court.

Well, for example, The State of California v Lopez will often be called the "State" when in the Californian courts, but "California" when it goes to the federal courts. It would be incorrect for the English courts to refer to "The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Murphy" as "The People v Murphy" although that would be more acceptable in Ireland as they are our people. So when citing foreign judgments that use "The People" in other countries, it is common to simply say "People v Murphy".

So Regina v X, Queen v Y, but not The Queen, because it could easily be a Danish, Sweedish, Thai case etc that you are referring to. The form of indictment in the UK says "The Queen" which is fine for the UK, but unless she is your Queen then she is simply a Queen. Even "The Queen of England" would be fine, but as there is more than one Queen in the world, it is incorrect to give her the definitive article unless you are one of her subjects (loyal or otherwise).

As regards the Crown, that is not the formal name of the prosecutor, but as they act for the Crown Prosecution Service their lawyers often say that they appear for "The Crown". Much like Irish prosecutors often, annoyingly, state that they appear for "The Director" instead of "The Director for Public Prosecutions" or simply "The Prosecutor/Prosecution". Since, in our nation of laws and written constitutional rights, I find it slightly upsetting to think that a metal hat is capable of prosecuting someone.

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, for example, The State of California v Lopez will often be called the "State" when in the Californian courts, but "California" when it goes to the federal courts. It would be incorrect for the English courts to refer to "The People (At the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Murphy" as "The People v Murphy" although that would be more acceptable in Ireland as they are our people. So when citing foreign judgments that use "The People" in other countries, it is common to simply say "People v Murphy".

So Regina v X, Queen v Y, but not The Queen, because it could easily be a Danish, Sweedish, Thai case etc that you are referring to. The form of indictment in the UK says "The Queen" which is fine for the UK, but unless she is your Queen then she is simply a Queen. Even "The Queen of England" would be fine, but as there is more than one Queen in the world, it is incorrect to give her the definitive article unless you are one of her subjects (loyal or otherwise).

As regards the Crown, that is not the formal name of the prosecutor, but as they act for the Crown Prosecution Service their lawyers often say that they appear for "The Crown". Much like Irish prosecutors often, annoyingly, state that they appear for "The Director" instead of "The Director for Public Prosecutions" or simply "The Prosecutor/Prosecution". Since, in our nation of laws and written constitutional rights, I find it slightly upsetting to think that a metal hat is capable of prosecuting someone.

I think you’re overanalysing this, Johnny. “The state”/“the crown”/”The DPP”/”The Attorney-General” in the name of a case from a particular jurisdiction refers to the state/crown/DPP/AG pertinent to that jurisdiction; it’s not necessary to labour this point every time. If you are ever in any doubt, the citation will tell you which jurisdiction is involved. It’s a safe bet than in R -v- Smith [1974] 1 All ER 632, “R” does not stand for the King of Thailand, and if the King of Thailand ever did bring suit in the English courts, the case would not be called “R -v-” anyone.

And “Crown” in the name of a UK case has nothing to do with the Crown Prosecution Service; “R” was pronounced “Crown” long before the Crown Prosecution Service was ever thought of. Prior to 1986 prosecutions were brought either by local police forces or by the Treasury Solicitor. But the barristers involved still appeared for the Crown, and said so, and R -v- Smith was still pronounced formally as “the Crown against Smith” (and informally as “Or vee Smith”).

valleyoftheunos

wow lot of discussion for what seemed like an innocuous question!

My own experience is that Law students say Versus where as practitioners say And, as students move closer to becoming practitioners they start saying and, I've always felt this was just a habit gradually picked up.

More to the point though is that it is perfectly acceptable and correct to use either in any circumstance.

XxMCRxBabyxX

As a law student in NUIM we were always taught to say and.

pedroeibar1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

..... If you are quoting pre 19th century criminal law you might want to reconsider your position, but afaik it was only Lizzy 1 and mqos in the 17th century.

Nope. Mary I, Mary II 1689-94, Anne 1702-07

Mary, Lizzie, James the Vain
Charlie, Charlie, James again.
William and Mary, Anne o'Gloria,
Four Georges, William and Victoria
Edward Seven, Georgie Five,
Edward, George and Liz (alive).

johnnyskeleton

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nope. Mary I, Mary II 1689-94, Anne 1702-07

Mary, Lizzie, James the Vain
Charlie, Charlie, James again.
William and Mary, Anne o'Gloria,
Four Georges, William and Victoria
Edward Seven, Georgie Five,
Edward, George and Liz (alive).

Name one criminal case from that era that might possibly be cited today. If you're citing somersets case, then you'll be forgiven for not knowing the reigning English monarch.