Is Queen Elizabeth above the law?

Factual Questions
1

Here’s the scene.

Both Liz and Phil are young and in their prime and early one morning Liz fancies a bacon sandwich.

Not wanting to wake the cook she strolls down to the kitchen and finds Phil giving one of the pantrymaids a damn good rogering.

In a fit of pique, Liz grabs the nearest blunt instrument, which just happens to be a meat clever (not all that blunt) and fetches Phil one around the noggin killing him…stone.cold.dead.

Could Liz be tried in one of Her courts of law for the crime of murder?

2

Yes.

The Monarch is not deemed to be above the law, and is deemed to be subject to the same laws as everyone else. At least, in theory.

3

In theory, yes.

In practice, how could she be tried in one of her own courts of law?

Who would dare prosecute?

4

Oh, there’d be plenty of Labourites who’d be happy to. There is a small but definite sentiment for ending the monarchy.

5

She would be tried by Parliament, not the Courts (q.v. Charles I).

6

Yes, she is above the law and, no, she could not be tried for murder.

But with three important caveats - firstly, she is under oath to ‘cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all [her] judgements’ (i.e. the text of her coronation oath); secondly, she can be deemed incapable of ruling and a regency appointed instead; and, thirdly, if not in theory then at least in practice, there is always the 1649 solution.

7

I just want to say that “damned good rogering” is a great, great phrase.

8

T’d be nice to see citations from anyone in this thread, but I’m especially interested in seeing one for this.

-FrL-

9

From the BBC:

From the Guardian:

10

Her sentence would be to be stuck with Philip for the rest of her life (snicker).

11

If HM allegedly committed such a serious crime, I think Parliament would quickly depose her or at least establish a regency until she could be tried. Parliament could create a special court for the trial, if it chose. Parliament is supreme - the Queen reigns but does not rule. And if she vetoed the bill creating the court that would itself probably suffice for most MPs as a reason to depose her.

12

I accept that HM could not be tried in the courts for any crime – it seems likely to me, and several in this thread have already said so. But she would not have no consequences for the act. If she had committed a serious crime, and knowledge of the crime became public, she would be required by the PM and by Parliament to abdicate. General public opinion (which always wins in a democracy like the UK, if strongly and widely held) would require it, and she would have few defenders in that court. (Her other realms would doubtless also want her to abdicate as head of state as well).

13

Weird! So it sounds like she really could kill somebody, and the worst that could happen would be she would lose her throne. (I assume she couldn’t be prosecuted for acts committed during her reign even after she’d been dethroned.)

I’m surprised.

14

By convention, she can only veto a bill on the advice of her government. If she broke that convention, her government (PM and other ministers) would resign, and she would find no one else to commission as government. She knows that, so she would have to accept whatever bill was sent to her by Parliament, whether a bill for abdication, or a bill for some special tribunal.

15

Just a minute.

  1. Law and Justice to be executed at all times, there are dozens of women out there that would say Phil got what he deserved…poetic justice.

  2. Incapable of ruling, why?. Just 'cos she found 'im indoors throwing a length up Doris the pantrymaid hardly makes her incapable.

  3. The death sentence no longer applies in the UK.

Anyway: As others have said, she is above the law, just as I thought.

16

You may use it good sir, as and when required;)

17

(citations omitted.)

18

Halsbury’s in turn cites Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol I., p. 235 in support of this point:

(I’ve tidied up the 18th century fonts and omitted one citation.)

19

That must really smart.

20

Why would this convention exist? If the government wanted her to veto a bill, why would it even make it to her for assent? I suppose under a minority government it could happen, but wouldn’t parliament dissolving be a more likely outcome?

Here in Canada there was recently some talk of the Governor General (The Queen’s representative in Canada) rejecting the government’s advice to prorogue parliament. She didn’t reject that advice, but there was talk about what would happen if she did. The term describing that situation was described as a ‘Constitutional crisis’ - and I’m not sure how that would have been resolved.

With the UK’s much longer history, hasn’t there been precedent since the 1689 Bill of Rights?