There was one example in Ontario where the Crown denied royal assent, on the advice of the Premier. It was a private members’ bill that got passed by the Assembly, in the 1870s or 1880s, when party discipline was much looser than it is today. Premier Mowat advised the Lieutenant Governor to refuse royal assent, because the private member’s bill went contrary to the policies of the Mowat administration.
Nitpick: denying royal assent is not the same as a veto. The Crown is part of the Legislature or Parliament, and the Crown’s assent to the bill is just as integral to the legislative process as passage of the bill by the houses.
Umm. Charles I. Tried by Parliament, then executed. That’s precedent. Yes, the Monarch cannot be tried by the Courts, but she can be tried by Parliament.
Well, I said “veto”, because I was responding to a comment using that term, but it’s not a veto as understood in federal US constitutional law. It’s unlikely to happen, but might happen if the government changed its mind about a bill, and just wanted the matter to go back to Parliament to fix the matter. However, such a situation would be pretty embarrassing to the government.
That would be a very serious step on the GG’s part, because it would bring her into a political controversy. She might win, but there would be serious risks, because the PM could resign and the House of Commons could stop supply to the government, and either of those actions could trigger a general election in any case.
No, Charles I was tried by a High Court of Justice, created by the House of Commons without the consent of either the Lords or (obviously) the King. It is a political precedent, but not a legal one, since the actions of the Commonwealth period were not considered legal, after the Restoration.
Well, if you ask for evidence in support of a proposition, you can also get evidence against in this forum.
But, legally, the UK Parliament can do anything (although it may find itself impeded by treaties and by European Union law these days). So the Parliament could pas a law saying that HM had bad taste in hats, and should therefor spend a week in one of her gaols. And if she had done some act that would have been murder when carried out by one of her subjects, Parliament could enact an ex-post-facto law that criminalised the act and sent her off to be tried by her judges. And the last time anything like that happened, King Charles I lost his head.
Could the legislature passing a law that goes against the government’s policies be considered tantamount to a motion of no confidence? Yes, I understand that it should be possible for the Sovereign to deny Royal Assent on the advice of their chief minister (after all, Royal Assent is required for a bill to become law, and it’s well-established that the Sovereign only acts on the advice of their government, and I suppose granting Royal Assent is an “act” of the Sovereign) but I still don’t like the precedent of a minority government – or any government – being allowed to disregard the legislature’s wishes.
I was just thinking about this issue of the Queen being immune to prosecution, so I thought that I’d try and find the authority for it in Canada. A surface reading of the Criminal Code appears to indicate that she could be tried:
In the definitions:
And of course:
I don’t think that’s the end of the story. Does anyone know where her immunity might come from in Canada? Is it in the received law or the Constitution or something?
A similar question might arise in any of her other realms, including the states of Australia, which retain some sovereignty including having the Queen as head of state. So, if while on a state visit to Sydney, HM killed her consort in the kitchen with a cleaver (as in the original scenario), could she be tried in a New South Wales court for murder? Note that it would be one of her alter egos, the Crown in right of New South Wales, that would be prosecuting for the crime. I suspect it’s an open question.
My understanding is that at that time, both party discipline and the concept of confidence were a lot less strict than they are now. Nowadays, I suppose it might be considered a confidence issue, or alternatively, it might be that the government would just accept the new law. I can’t remember the details of what the conflict was about.
There was some discussion here in Canada that refusing to prorogue Parliament might actually have been the Constitutionally-preferred step, since it was something of an abuse of the PM’s prerogative in the first place. The PM was attempting to avoid a non-confidence vote in the House, knowing that since it was happening in the immediate aftermath of an election, and with a minority government, the GG might well entertain an offer for the Opposition to form a coalition government rather than call a new general election so soon after the last.
Yes, I haven’t followed recent Canadian politics in detail, but having a minority government does put the PM into a rather weak position. I think it’s much less likely for the GG to refuse the PM’s advice if the PM has a proper majority in the lower house.
Just to follow up on this point: in 1660, Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda, setting out the terms on which he would accept the throne, left vacant since the execution of his father, Charles I. One of his terms was that he would give an amnesty to any opponents of his father or himself who pledged allegiance to him, subject to one exception: he would not promise any indemnity to the regicides who had sat in judgment on his father. After his Restoration, several of the surviving regicides were caught and executed, while some who had died before the Restoration, such as Oliver Cromwell and Ireton, were disinterred and posthumously hanged, drawn and quartered, then beheaded.
So to sum up, under the legal regime set in place by the Restoration, the Commons does not have the authority at present to authorise the trial of the sovereign, and doing so may be considered high treason.
the example cited in the o.p. would constitute treason, if i am reading the “giving one of the pantrymaids a damn good rogering” properly. royal spouses have lost their heads over adultery. the queen in the example above is just getting right to the beheading part.
the tricky bit in taking a reigning monarch to court are the charges.
say, the cook gives the queen a ham sandwich instead of the blt she requested. the queen kills the cook. how can you bring charges? the queen can say the cook committed treason for not following her order for a blt. not following the order is an act of treason… the treason defense is good for many occasions.
now say the queen decides to rob a bank. how can you charge her? the money is hers. technically she isn’t robbing the bank.
unless you pull off a coup, charging a reigning monarch is a very sticky wicket.
