Your name is synonymous with two huge court cases, and many people will see you as

Gina Miller anti-Brexit campaigner, but how would you describe yourself?

It was quite frustrating when that label is put out there because both cases were about the

fundamentals of our democracy and our constitution. It was about parliamentary sovereignty,

that we pay our money, we make our vote to elect individuals who then are part of the system

of scrutinising government and ensuring there is no overreaching of government ministerial power.

And that's exactly what the two cases were defending.

So the parliamentary sovereignty slogans that were being said throughout the referendum

and then after the referendum were exactly what I was defending.

So it's much more important than Brexit, in my view, and it was simply about giving Parliament its voice.

Going back to your first case, the one on Article 50, which you said was to maintain the principle that Parliament was sovereign.

Was the court the right place to resolve that, do you think?

Yes, because if you look at Article 50, it says quite clearly that Member State can leave along the lines of its constitutional requirements.

And our constitutional requirements is that if people's rights are going to change, which it would have done by or has done with triggering Article 50,

that needed to involve our Parliament and could not be under the

royal prerogative. So it was a fundamental rewriting, or would have been, a fundamental rewriting

and precedent, new precedent set for how royal prerogative could be used on the domestic

plane. So it was very much the case that it had to be tested in the courts to see if it was

legal. Because if it hadn't been, and the Prime Minister May had to be tested in the courts to see if it was legal. Because if it hadn't

been and the Prime Minister May had triggered Article 50 using the royal prerogative, it could

have been a scenario further down the line where we as a nation could have been sued by the EU for

not following Article 50. And you're also keen to make sure the Parliament had a bigger role

...