Quizzes & Puzzles65 mins ago
When Was The Last Time Someone In The Uk Was Charged With Treason?
A young man, armed with a crossbow, who was arrested in the grounds of Windsor Castle has been charged with treason.
Is this an unusual charge?
Is this an unusual charge?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.yes the young lad who fired blanks at her Maj -
source - the radio
someone will come up with the history of Treason Law
After Edw II 's accident wivda poker ( 1327 )
( Do not go for if thou meanst to kill thou wilt come again - Marlowe 1587) - aaah
Edward III just got parliament to declare them regicides ( kkinda attainder). And even in 1350 this was thought unfair, as the right to a defence was ran deep even then (*)
so.... the offence of Treason was codified. Yup 'tis so. Attainder ( act of parliament just saying he is guilty was slowly replaced by impeachment where a defence was allowed). Most attainders 1350-70 were repealed on the grounds of the defence wasnt heard ( audi alteram partem and all that)
encompassing the king's death
defiling his dear wife or daughter
and so on
1661 Sedition Act - around the time that the Kings policies became the Kings ministers' policies so you cd oppose them with risking Treason, was passed and this was converted to 1795 Treason Act
BUT
it was beginning to be realised that some things didnt really warrant the charge
AND so ( honestly someone asked) 1842 Treason Act was passed ( theone the fella this year and blank-shooter was charged with)
AND dont forget the 1848 Treason Felony Act which converted capital crimes to non-capital - demonstating outside parliament springs to mind
1868 - Transportation to Oz stopped
so Joyce - 1351 Act
and the other two - Treason Act 1842
presumably the fella admitted he was nt after a fawn but her Maj !
So durr that he cd fit in easily on AB - ter daaah !
Havent checked any of this, because quite honestly for AB it just isnt worf da effort. ( any response is: foo wot he on abart he den foo etc etc for ever) - is there a case for the AB football team to be called Durrs United ?
source - the radio
someone will come up with the history of Treason Law
After Edw II 's accident wivda poker ( 1327 )
( Do not go for if thou meanst to kill thou wilt come again - Marlowe 1587) - aaah
Edward III just got parliament to declare them regicides ( kkinda attainder). And even in 1350 this was thought unfair, as the right to a defence was ran deep even then (*)
so.... the offence of Treason was codified. Yup 'tis so. Attainder ( act of parliament just saying he is guilty was slowly replaced by impeachment where a defence was allowed). Most attainders 1350-70 were repealed on the grounds of the defence wasnt heard ( audi alteram partem and all that)
encompassing the king's death
defiling his dear wife or daughter
and so on
1661 Sedition Act - around the time that the Kings policies became the Kings ministers' policies so you cd oppose them with risking Treason, was passed and this was converted to 1795 Treason Act
BUT
it was beginning to be realised that some things didnt really warrant the charge
AND so ( honestly someone asked) 1842 Treason Act was passed ( theone the fella this year and blank-shooter was charged with)
AND dont forget the 1848 Treason Felony Act which converted capital crimes to non-capital - demonstating outside parliament springs to mind
1868 - Transportation to Oz stopped
so Joyce - 1351 Act
and the other two - Treason Act 1842
presumably the fella admitted he was nt after a fawn but her Maj !
So durr that he cd fit in easily on AB - ter daaah !
Havent checked any of this, because quite honestly for AB it just isnt worf da effort. ( any response is: foo wot he on abart he den foo etc etc for ever) - is there a case for the AB football team to be called Durrs United ?
joyce's defence was that he was german naturalised and so was not indictable for Treason
( same for Tokyo Rose and America, she said, Boys I am a Jap) (*)
and their lordships held that he travelled to germany on a British passport and so er was indictable.
(*) one of her punch lines was - hi G I - who is your girl sleeping with tonight?
( same for Tokyo Rose and America, she said, Boys I am a Jap) (*)
and their lordships held that he travelled to germany on a British passport and so er was indictable.
(*) one of her punch lines was - hi G I - who is your girl sleeping with tonight?
'In 2001, the Guardian, which had launched a campaign for the establishment of a republic, initiated a legal challenge against the antique statute on the grounds that it prevented freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The law lords dismissed the newspaper's case on the grounds that it was unnecessary .
Lord Steyn explained: "The part of section 3 of the 1848 [Treason Felony] Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age, and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that s3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal." But, he added, courts should not be used as "an instrument … [to] chivvy parliament into spring-cleaning the statute book".'
The law lords dismissed the newspaper's case on the grounds that it was unnecessary .
Lord Steyn explained: "The part of section 3 of the 1848 [Treason Felony] Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age, and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that s3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal." But, he added, courts should not be used as "an instrument … [to] chivvy parliament into spring-cleaning the statute book".'
-- answer removed --
// apparently calling for the abolition of the monarchy is still treason.//
guardian with obviously nothing to do
started an action that s4 was incompat with the Human RIghts Act and... altho Corbo's quote is correct
they wouldnt play barl
and said it was a what-if question that the ct declined to answer
BUT
I thought ( as one does) that the same argument would be used for the referral of the scots referendum ( would it be lawful?) to the supreme ct wd be batted away with similar logic
we must wait and see
to wit - that is a hypothetical question, so wait and see if Nicola S does or not
guardian with obviously nothing to do
started an action that s4 was incompat with the Human RIghts Act and... altho Corbo's quote is correct
they wouldnt play barl
and said it was a what-if question that the ct declined to answer
BUT
I thought ( as one does) that the same argument would be used for the referral of the scots referendum ( would it be lawful?) to the supreme ct wd be batted away with similar logic
we must wait and see
to wit - that is a hypothetical question, so wait and see if Nicola S does or not
they cant just speak
they have to 'do' something
for treason - that was the whole point of the Grauniad case. Their lordships wdnt wear it because no one had done anything
and talking of speaking - can we have more free speech and less answer removed please - the stupid and moronic should be allowed to stand (stet ) and bear witness to their er intelligence -
too much nanny - this is treason for chrissakes
they have to 'do' something
for treason - that was the whole point of the Grauniad case. Their lordships wdnt wear it because no one had done anything
and talking of speaking - can we have more free speech and less answer removed please - the stupid and moronic should be allowed to stand (stet ) and bear witness to their er intelligence -
too much nanny - this is treason for chrissakes
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.