Talk:High treason in the United Kingdom

Nation specific?

This article deals almost exclusively with High Treason as defined in the United Kingdom through history and today. For instance the whole paragraph on Punishment deals entirely with how the English/GBR penal code was through history, while High Treason is defined in many other texts of law around the world. To take one famous example, Vidkun Quisling was convicted of High Treason. In Norway. And I assume there have been more convictions around the world since 1946 when the "last execution of any kind for high treason" was carried out.

Anyone willing to work on this article to make it less nation-specific?

Moquel 19:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a seperate Treason article. Richard75 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that "high treason" is an English expression.--Jack Upland 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the point is that this page is called high treason in the United Kingdom. That means this is therefore the article for discussing the United Kingdom. If you want an international perspective then look to the articles on high treason and treason. This is not the page for discussing Norway.Richard75 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Life imprisonment during peacetime only?

At the top, it is stated "Today, however, cases of treason are rare; the maximum punishment, during peacetime, is life imprisonment.", however down near the bottom it said " Since 1998, the maximum punishment for high treason became life imprisonment." Either life imprisonment is the maximum sentence during peacetime only or all the time. I guessed the former is correct but if not, remove references to during peacetime for the current situation... Nil Einne 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

also if it is during peactime only, it needs to be clarified at the bottom what's the maximum during wartime (I guess death) Nil Einne 18:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the same penalty in peace and wartime. I have amended the article accordingly. See also Human Rights Act 1998. Richard75 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Please discuss in the Treason talkpage Talk:Treason

Lady Jane Grey

I may be wrong, but strictly speaking wasn't Lady Jane Grey's treason that of denying the right of Parliament to settle the succession, rather than usurpation per se? Silverhelm 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Last trial in 1946?

Surely Marcus Sarjeant, who was tried under the Treason Act 1842, in 1981 would be the most recent example of high treason, since he was charged under Section 2, for "wilfully discharging a revolver near the person of the Queen with intent to alarm her"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.17.187 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because that offence is not treason. See Treason Act 1842. It is called the Treason Act because of section 1, now repealed. Richard75 (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "constructive treason"?

From the article:

Treason (including constructive treason) is a reserved matter on which the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate.

There is no explanation anywhere of what "constructive treason" might be; I certainly don't know! Loganberry (Talk) 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It means that the Treason Act 1351 has, by a process of 'jucicial construction', been held to make treason certain acts which would not be treason under that Act if you interpreted it literally. So for example, the expression 'levying war against the King in his realm' in that Act has been held to include a riot or insurrection for the purpose of effecting a public innovation, such as forcing the Government to change its policy, effecting an alteration in the law, opening all prisons (but not a particular prison), or (and this is an actual case) pulling down all protestant meeting houses (but not a particular one).

'Constructive treason' is a collective term for all of the offences that judges, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, decided were treason under the Treason Act 1351 by, for the want of a better description, twisting its words (perhaps the word 'twisting' is too strong).

I hope that this explanation is reasonably intelligle, though I fear it might not be. James500 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See constructive treason. Richard75 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Acts in Force today: Treason Act 1945

The Treason Act 1945 is listed by the Chronological Table of Statutes (2007) as being in force (short title in bold type). In particular, section 3 appears to still be in force in England and Wales because the 1967 Act only repealed ss. 1 & 2 and Sch. I appreciate that the Act seems to be completely spent, and I can't understand why CLA 1967 only partially repealed it, but I do not think that it is accurate to omit it from the list if it has not been wholly repealed. James500 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Although that seems to be true, all that seems to be left is the short title, and one spent subsection, so while it may not have actually been repealed, it is hard to say that it is still "in force," in the sense that it no longer seems to affect the law. It is not listed on the Statute Law Database.[1] If you still want to add it anyway, better note that it is entirely repealed in Scotland (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980). Richard75 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to list it would create the impression that it has been repealed, so I am going to add a sublist. James500 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Act of Supremacy (Ireland) This situation is a bit confusing. The Victorian legislation decriminalised breaches of the Act of Supremacy, without amending the text of the Act. But then the 1998 Act amended the text to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty. This is probably an oversight by the Parliamentary researchers, but it might nevertheless have had the effect of reviving the offence. I'm not sure what the article should say now though, since we need to avoid POV and OR. Any ideas? Richard75 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested, the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 may also be a mistake, as it was certainly not consequential on the abolition of the death penalty. See House of Lords Hansard at the bottom of the page here James500 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Penalty

To change the reference may not be strictly accurate. Section 36 of the 1998 Act does not provide the penalty for treason, which is what the reference now implies. What it does is to amend other Acts which in turn provide the penalty for treason. In Halsbury, they set out the Acts that provide the penalty for England and Wales in full.

And the present text does not acknowledge section V of the 1708 Act which is what (in conjunction with the 1814 Act, which only applies to "all cases where the penalty is currently X") is what actually provides the penalty in Scotland, and isn't mentioned in the 1998 Act. James500 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that a reference is only needed to verify that the paragraph is accurate, it doesn't need to set out every section which provides for the new penalty. However I agree that the new reference is misleading as it implies that section 36 says something it doesn't, so I will add some clarification. All I was trying to do was avoid having an unwieldy large set of references. Richard75 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the article was better the way that it was, although perhaps the list of references could be combined into a single footnote. I feel that there is a value in setting out the enactments which presently provide the penalty, somewhere (because it obviates the need for further research on the part of readers; and if I am reading an article, I don't want to be sent to look at a statute which I then have to decipher).

It would be more accurate to say that "the penalty is provided by the several enactments amended by section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and section V of the Treason Act 1708".James500 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do that then. Richard75 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Audit trail of 'an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so'.

'Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so.'

Can anyone tell me the Audit trail of 'an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so'.

I have Halsbury Rules of England but cannot quite match this up.

I am currently claiming treason against the Judiciary in the UK Civil Courts on the grounds that alleged continual unconstitutional decisions by the courts, particularly a failure to give adequate reasons, amount to undermining the constitution = undermining the authority of the Sovereign.

86.132.153.227 (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC))

It's not really accurate. There is not actually one crime of treason but several, listed in detail further down the article, which are collectively known as "treason." The first sentence of this article was somebody's attempt to summarise what treason is, but not very successfully and it seems to have caused some confusion. I have edited the sentence to cut that phrase out. What you need to do to find out what is or is not treason is look at the "Offences" section of the article. However Wikipedia is not really the place to get legal advice from. Richard75 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I agree there are several crimes of treason. They were summarised but I didn't find them confusing. Just to remove the bit about 'amounting to an intention to undermine their authority or he attempt to do so' makes it worse in my opinion. The "Offences" section is incomplete. It is clear from Halsbury's Laws of England that to attempt to destroy the Constitution is treason. That is close to what was there before because the "authority" is the constitution, it appears to me. That crime is much more useful these days, with the general eroding of our rights, than planning to kill the sovereign, etc. I am not on Wikipedia for legal advice but for information. I hope the original poster gets back to explain, and the site rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.23.90 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Page move

This page was recently moved to "Treason in the United Kingdom," on the ground that we no longer need to call it high treason since that is now the only form of treason that exists. I acknowledge that modern legislation just refers to it as treason. However I have moved the page back to "High treason in the UK" because: 1) the article does not just deal with the modern offence, but is also an account of the development of the offence since 1351, and 2) the article does not deal with petit treason (except very briefly and with a link to that article), and so calling the article Treason etc might mislead the reader into thinking the article dealt with the entire subject. I have added a sentence to explain that high treason is often just called treason today. I did consider merging the petit treason article into this one, but decided not to because other common law countries had that offence too. I hope all these reasons make sense. Richard75 (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"I have added a sentence to explain that high treason is often just called treason today." The point is that there is no offence of high treason currently known to English law. We would not deal with the contemporary offence of theft under an article entitled larceny! Unsigned comment left by ITSB351 at 15:19 on 19 January 2012.

As a matter of fact there is. The Treason Act 1702 still describes this offence as high treason (current text of the Act here.) It was never officially renamed (unlike larceny). Richard75 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(PS: if you type ~~~~ after your comment, it signs it for you. Richard75 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC) )