Treason Act 1351
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
High Treason
11th October 2017 High Treason The first Treason Act in England was enacted by Parliament at the time of Edward III in 1351, which codified the common law of Treason and contained most of acts defined as Treason. It is still in force but has been very significantly amended (Wikipedia - Treason Act 1351). The main definitions relate to any person planning or imagined: “to harm the King or his immediate family, his sons and heirs or their companions; levying war against the King, plus actions against the King's officials, counterfeiting the Great Seal. Privy Seal or coinage of the realm.” The definitions also included that any person who "adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere was guilty of High Treason" The penalty for these offences at the time was Hanging, Drawing and Quartering. The Act is still in force today (without the "drawing and quartering part") The Act was last used to prosecute William Joyce in 1945, who was subsequently hanged for collaborating with Germany during WWII More recently the Treason Felony Act (1848) declared that It is treason felony to: "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend: • to deprive the Queen of her crown, • to levy war against the Queen, or • to "move or stir" any foreigner to invade the United Kingdom or any other country belonging to the Queen.” Blair and the New Labour government enacted The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) which amended The Treason Felony Act (1848) and formally abolished the death penalty for the last offences carrying it, namely treason and piracy. -
What If the Founders Had Not Constitutionalized the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
THE COUNTERFACTUAL THAT CAME TO PASS: WHAT IF THE FOUNDERS HAD NOT CONSTITUTIONALIZED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS? AMANDA L. TYLER* INTRODUCTION Unlike the other participants in this Symposium, my contribution explores a constitutional counterfactual that has actually come to pass. Or so I will argue it has. What if, this Essay asks, the Founding generation had not constitutionalized the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? As is explored below, in many respects, the legal framework within which we are detaining suspected terrorists in this country today—particularly suspected terrorists who are citizens1—suggests that our current legal regime stands no differently than the English legal framework from which it sprang some two-hundred-plus years ago. That framework, by contrast to our own, does not enshrine the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as a right enjoyed by reason of a binding and supreme constitution. Instead, English law views the privilege as a right that exists at the pleasure of Parliament and is, accordingly, subject to legislative override. As is also shown below, a comparative inquiry into the existing state of detention law in this country and in the United Kingdom reveals a notable contrast—namely, notwithstanding their lack of a constitutionally- based right to the privilege, British citizens detained in the United Kingdom without formal charges on suspicion of terrorist activities enjoy the benefit of far more legal protections than their counterparts in this country. The Essay proceeds as follows: Part I offers an overview of key aspects of the development of the privilege and the concept of suspension, both in England and the American Colonies, in the period leading up to ratification of the Suspension Clause as part of the United States Constitution. -
268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore
Published on e-First 14 April 2021 THE LAW ON TREASONABLE OFFENCES IN SINGAPORE This article aims to provide an extensive and detailed analysis of the law on treasonable offences in Singapore. It traces the historical development of the treason law in Singapore from the colonial period under British rule up until the present day, before proceeding to lay down the applicable legal principles that ought to govern these treasonable offences, drawing on authorities in the UK, India as well as other Commonwealth jurisdictions. With a more long-term view towards the reform and consolidation of the treason law in mind, this article also proposes several tentative suggestions for reform, complete with a draft bill devised by the author setting out these proposed changes. Benjamin LOW1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore). “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”2 I. Introduction 1 The law on treasonable offences, more commonly referred to as treason,3 in Singapore remains shrouded in a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity despite having existed as part of the legal fabric of Singapore since its early days as a British colony. A student who picks up any major textbook on Singapore criminal law will find copious references to various other kinds of substantive offences, general principles of criminal liability as well as discussion of law reform even, but very little mention is made of the relevant law on treason.4 Academic commentary on this 1 The author is grateful to Julia Emma D’Cruz, the staff of the C J Koh Law Library, the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library and the ISEAS Library for their able assistance in the author’s research for this article. -
Criminal Law Act 1967
Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1967. (See end of Document for details) Criminal Law Act 1967 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Annotations: Extent Information E1 Subject to s. 11(2)-(4) this Part shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland see s. 11(1) 1 Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. (1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are hereby abolished. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on all matters on which a distinction has previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, including mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences cognisable under the law of England and Wales (including piracy) shall be the law and practice applicable at the commencement of this Act in relation to misdemeanour. [F12 Arrest without warrant. (1) The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person (not previously convicted) may under or by virtue of any enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years [F2(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by 2 Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. -
Modernising the Law of Murder and Manslaughter: Part 1
Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the Law of Murder and Manslaughter: Part 1 Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 17, 2015 Accepted: November 2, 2015 Online Published: November 19, 2015 doi:10.5539/jpl.v8n4p9 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v8n4p9 Index 1. Introduction 31. Hawkins (1716-21) 2. Source Material 32. Blackstone (1765-9) 3. Legal Issues not Considered 33. Summary: Law to 1769 4. Meaning of Words 34. Foster (1776) 5. Benefit of Hindsight 35. East (1803) 6. Babylonian Code 36. Russell (1819) 7. Old Testament law 37. From 1819-1843 8. Roman law 38. Royal Commissions (1843-78) 9. Anglo-Saxon law 39. Stephen (1883) 10. Laws of Henry I (c.1113) 40. Kenny (1902) 11. Glanvill (c.1189) 41. Summary: Law to 1902 12. Summary: Law to 1189 42. Turner (1945) 13. Bracton (c.1240) 43. Royal Commission (1953) & Homicide Act 1957 14. Statute of Marlborough 1267 44. Smith & Hogan (1965) 15. Statute of Gloucester 1278 45. Criminal Law Revision Committee (1980) 16. Britton, Fleta & Mirror of Justices (c.1290) 46. Williams (1983) 17. Statute of Trespassers in Parks 1293 47. Law Commission Criminal Code (1989) 18. Edward III (1327-1377) 48. Carter & Harrison (1991) 19. Act of 1389 on Pardons 49. Justifiable Killing by 1998 20. From 1389-1551 50. -
The Law and Economics of High Treason in England from Its Feudal Origin to the Early Seventeenth Century
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ValpoScholar Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 22 Number 1 Fall 1987 pp.81-108 Fall 1987 The Law and Economics of High Treason in England from its Feudal Origin to the Early Seventeenth Century Frank W. Harris Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frank W. Harris, The Law and Economics of High Treason in England from its Feudal Origin to the Early Seventeenth Century, 22 Val. U. L. Rev. 81 (1987). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol22/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Harris: The Law and Economics of High Treason in England from its Feudal Origin to the Early Seventeenth Century THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF HIGH TREASON IN ENGLAND FROM ITS FEUDAL ORIGIN TO THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY FRANK W. HARRIS* Placed in the context of its historical setting between the Norman Con- quest of the eleventh century and the advent of the modern age, what fol- lows is a study of treason in England based on the relationship between law and economics. The treason dealt with is high treason, that which was di- rected against the king as sovereign. The adjective "high" generally will be deleted, but should remain understood. -
Treason in Law, Treason Is the Crime That
Treason A 19th century illustration of Guy Fawkes by George Cruikshank. Guy Fawkes tried to assassinate James I of England. He failed and was convicted of treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour. Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor. At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. -
Domestic and International Trials, 1700-2000
Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000 Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000 The trial in history, volume II edited by R. A. Melikan Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave Copyright © Manchester University Press 2003 While copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in Manchester University Press, copyright in individual chapters belongs to their respective authors. This electronic version has been made freely available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC- ND) licence, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author(s) and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Published by Manchester University Press Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9NR, UK and Room 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 0 7190 6486 4 hardback First published 2003 1009080706050403 10987654321 Typeset in Photina by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong Printed in Great Britain by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd, Midsomer Norton iv Contents List of figures and tables page vi List of contributors vii Acknowledgements ix List of legal abbreviations x Introduction R. A. Melikan 1 1 Evidence law and the evidentiary objection: a view from the British Trials collection T. P. Gallanis 12 2 Sense and sensibility: fateful splitting in the Victorian insanity trial Joel Peter Eigen 21 3 Trials of character: the use of character evidence in Victorian sodomy trials H. -
PUNISHING the CRIMINAL CORPSE, 1700-1840 Aggravated Forms of the Death Penalty in England
palgrave historical studies in the criminal corpse and its afterlife PUNISHING THE CRIMINAL CORPSE, 1700-1840 Aggravated Forms of the Death Penalty in England Peter King Palgrave Historical Studies in the Criminal Corpse and its Afterlife Series Editors Owen Davies School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire Hatfield, UK Elizabeth T. Hurren School of Historical Studies University of Leicester Leicester, UK Sarah Tarlow History and Archaeology University of Leicester Leicester, UK This limited, finite series is based on the substantive outputs from a major, multi-disciplinary research project funded by the Wellcome Trust, inves- tigating the meanings, treatment, and uses of the criminal corpse in Britain. It is a vehicle for methodological and substantive advances in approaches to the wider history of the body. Focussing on the period between the late seventeenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries as a crucial period in the formation and transformation of beliefs about the body, the series explores how the criminal body had a prominent presence in popular culture as well as science, civic life and medico-legal activity. It is historically significant as the site of overlapping and sometimes contradictory understandings between scientific anatomy, criminal justice, popular medicine, and social geography. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14694 Peter King Punishing the Criminal Corpse, 1700–1840 Aggravated Forms of the Death Penalty in England Peter King University of Leicester Leicester, UK Palgrave Historical Studies in the Criminal Corpse and its Afterlife ISBN 978-1-137-51360-1 ISBN 978-1-137-51361-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-51361-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944586 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017. -
Aiding the Enemy
Aiding the Enemy How and why to restore the law of treason Richard Ekins, Patrick Hennessey, Khalid Mahmood MP and Tom Tugendhat MP Foreword by Rt Hon Lord Judge Aiding the Enemy How and why to restore the law of treason Richard Ekins, Patrick Hennessey, Khalid Mahmood MP and Tom Tugendhat MP Foreword by Rt Hon Lord Judge Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Andrew Feldman, Candida Gertler, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Peter Wall, Nigel Wright. About the Author About the Authors Professor Richard Ekins is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project. He is an Associate Professor in the University of Oxford, and a Fellow of St John’s College. He is a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand (non-practising), where he has also served as a judge’s clerk. -
A Man for All Treasons: Crimes by and Against the Tudor State in the Novels of Hilary Mantel Alison Lacroix
University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2015 A Man For All Treasons: Crimes By and Against the Tudor State in the Novels of Hilary Mantel Alison LaCroix Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Alison LaCroix, "A Man For All Treasons: Crimes By and Against the Tudor State in the Novels of Hilary Mantel" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 511, 2015). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 511 A MAN FOR ALL TREASONS: CRIMES BY AND AGAINST THE TUDOR STATE IN THE NOVELS OF HILARY MANTEL Alison L. LaCroix THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO February 2015 This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. A Man For All Treasons: Crimes By and Against the Tudor State in the Novels of Hilary Mantel Alison L. -
EXPLANATORY NOTES Succession to the Crown Act 2013
EXPLANATORY NOTES Succession to the Crown Act 2013 Chapter 20 £5.75 These notes refer to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (c.20) which received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013 SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT 2013 —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013. They have been prepared by the Cabinet Office in order to assist the reader of the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The notes need to be read in conjunction with the Act. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Act. So where a section or part of a section does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. SUMMARY 3. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 makes three changes to the law governing the succession to the Crown. It ends the system of male preference primogeniture under which a younger son displaces an elder daughter in the line of succession. 4. The Act also removes the statutory provisions under which anyone who marries a Roman Catholic loses their place in the line of succession. 5. Thirdly, the Act repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which (with some exceptions) makes void the marriage of any of the descendants of George II who fails to obtain the Sovereign’s permission prior to their marriage. BACKGROUND 6. The Prime Minster announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011 that, with the agreement of the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms of which Her Majesty is also Head of State, the United Kingdom would change the rules of royal succession to end the system of male preference primogeniture and the bar on those who marry Roman Catholics from succeeding to the Throne.