According to this AP story.
Charle’s secretary was quoted:
Yet the Queen won’t participate:
Well, here’s one question that should be investigated… did the Queen commit perjury to to protect the butler in exchange for getting back some embarassing information back privately? I guess since she didn’t testify in the trial, perjury isn’t the right term. Obstruction of justice? Or the English equivalent?
I’m not actually saying she did this, but I AM saying that a thorough investigation would need to address that question. And Charles is going to investigate his mother and dead ex-wife’s butler?
So I ask our friends across the Pond, exactly what kind of crock is this? This this really has a taste of Watergate to it, a two bit burglary followed by a royal coverup, followed by, well, who knows what in the present situation?
Is something akin to an independent prosecutor a possibility in England? Who could investigate the question of whether the queen committed a crime?
The Royal Family is not above the law - Princess Anne recently wound up in court when her dog attacked someone, and has been done for speeding in the past.
If the Queen were suspected of a crime, she’d be investigated in much the same way as any other extremely wealthy and powerful person. If there actually were a case to be made against her, I’m sure lawyers would be looking hard at the constitutional issues… but, basically, the monarch is not above the law. Just ask Charles I…
Of course, the Queen, at the moment, is “accused” of nothing more serious than providing a statement which put the last nail in the coffin of a staggeringly inept prosecution case… more of a public service than a crime, if you ask me. All this stuff about “secret information could bring down the House of Windsor” is entirely unsubstantiated, and I for one will be amazed if any real evidence ever turns up at all. Members of the Royal Family are very reluctant to sue newspapers; because of this, the tabloids feel free to make all sorts of allegations on the flimsiest of evidence.
This is consistent with everything else that has emerged about the case and provides a plausible explanation for her actions. Compare this with the various versions of the conspiracy theories, none of which have yet explained why, if the Queen was so anxious to stop the trial to avoid embarassment, she had allowed it to start in the first place.
Oh, and volunteering relevant information isn’t a crime, even if one calculates that it might cause a case to collapse.
Charles is not ‘going to investigate his mother and dead ex-wife’s butler’. The inquiry which has been set up by him is an internal inquiry to investigate the various allegations which have been published since the collapse of the Burrell trial (so much for any supposed cover-up) involving members of his own household. Most of those relate to incidents predating Sir Michael Peat’s appointment as one of Charles’s servants. Assuming that the inquiry is bound to be a cover-up is probably naive, as, if anything, it looks more like a pre-emptive strike by Peat against his rivals among Charles’s existing servants.
Not only is the Queen free from being called to lead evidence in court, she also has immunity from prosecution. Criminal prosecutions in the UK are brought in the monarch’s name (as they are commonly are here in Australia); Regina does not bring charges against Regina.
Princess Anne is a different case. She’s not the monarch.
I’m can’t access UK legal databases from home, but here’s a corroborating article from BBC News.
Immunity from prosecution doesn’t mean immunity from investigation… and if the investigation turned up solid grounds for a prosecution (presumably, it would have to be something terribly serious), you can bet that a way around the problem would be found. I can’t imagine any circumstances where it would be considered “in the public interest” to prosecute the Queen, but, if it were, it could be done. Perhaps an EU court could claim jurisdiction these days.
Charles I argued, quite persuasively, during his trial that Parliament had no right to try him. That didn’t stop them trying him, finding him guilty, and having him executed. Definitely set a precedent there, I think. (I’ve heard it argued that the precedent was actually set by the execution of Mary Queen of Scots in the reign of Elizabeth I; whatever. The point is, in exceptional cases, it is possible to bring a reigning monarch to trial. Whatever Norman St John Stevas thinks.)
It’s not as if there is any shortage in English history of legal arguments being invented to justify actions against reigning monarchs. Ask Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, James II… That’s one of the advantages of not having a written constitution. One should also note that the principle is not unique, with the heads of state of many other countries, including the USA, enjoying comparable forms of immunity.
Whatever the Queen’s immunities, I’m sure she can’t simply order any government employee to do or not do anything she wants.
I’m not familiar enough with English history to have an opinion on the relevance of other royal trials to this one. My impression is those examples mentioned by Steve Wright and APB are more along the lines of attempted coups as opposed to simple violations of existing law. Is this correct?
Thank you for theBBC link, Narrad. I take that as rather authoritative on the current state of immunity for the Queen. In place, with precedent, but politically shaky.
What exactly does Charles’s “household” encompass? His personal staff only? The Palace staff? His family, including or excluding the Queen? Is he declaring that he is looking into whether any of his servants acted as go-betweens to the Spensors or Windsors?
What does Charles hope to accomplish by jumping in here? I doubt that many would trust that his investigation would be unbiased and be allowed to go wherever the evidence led.
Suppose there was damming evidence against the Queen? Most, including me, would more readily believe Charles buries rather than exposes it. And if he DID expose it, it would be seen by many others as an attempted coup – he’d be charged with manufacturing evidence 'cause he’s getting real tired of being Crown Prince and wants to move up to the line to be King.
I suppose I see this investigation as lose-lose for Charles. What am I missing?
Hmm. Thought this one over, and, you know, I don’t think it’s true.
You can make a case that the Queen is in the chain of command for all public servants. You can also make the case that the Crown is in the chain of command, not the private person who happens to be wearing it. It’s a knotty point that constitutional lawyers would be happy to unravel, at a rate of 500 guineas per hour.
However, even if the Queen is able to issue orders to public servants, that does not necessarily mean that those orders have to be obeyed. An order to a police officer to halt a legitimate investigation would probably be an unlawful order (necessarily so - it would be obstructing the course of justice), and unlawful orders need not be obeyed. (Hence, as we all know, “I was only obeying orders” is not a defence in law.)
We don’t have an absolute monarchy in this country, the Queen’s word is not automatically law. In fact, I don’t think we’ve ever had an absolute monarchy in that sense… prior to the beginnings of the English Common Law (generally attributed to Alfred the Great), the Bretwalda of England was a High King, whose authority ran only as far as he could persuade or force his sub-kings to cooperate. Currently (for the benefit of our American readers) the Queen’s role in legislation is entirely formal; she retains, in theory, the right to be consulted and the right to give assent - that is, Parliament have to send her their proposed legislation, and it doesn’t become law until she signs on the dotted line. But I don’t know when the last time was that the Royal Assent was withheld - if it ever has been, since that particular constitutional rule was formulated.
It might be instructive to look at Edward VIII here. He wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, and the laws of succession didn’t permit this (yes, I know I’m oversimplifying). He couldn’t change the laws of succession himself, and he couldn’t persuade Parliament to do it for him… so he had to abdicate in order to marry. Clear enough proof that the monarch is bound by the laws of the land. This has, arguably, been true since the foundation of English Common Law, certainly true since Magna Carta. The cases alluded to by APB all involve disputes in law over who has the right to the Crown, and/or what rights the monarch has to act.
yojimboguy, loath as I am to fuel the speculation over the whole Burrell business, I’ll give it a shot here. Most of this speculation seems to be based on the idea that the Queen would not have intervened when she did unless Burrell had some “damaging revelation” or other that would come out if he was called to give evidence. I think this is a load of rubbish. Remember, the Royal Family were actually misinformed by the police as to the evidence against Burrell (they claimed they had evidence he’d sold some of the property, but this evidence - if it existed at all - was not presented at the trial); once it became clear to the Queen that the issue of dishonesty was the principal one, and she knew she could prove Burrell had not been dishonest, she took action accordingly. And she waited as long as she could, because she didn’t want to be seen as interfering in the judicial process - because, in English law, the monarch is not allowed to do that.
**We have British lawyers on the boards, don’t we? I’d love to hear what they think of this issue.
Here’s my take: the monarch may well be bound by some so-called laws of the land. However, criminal prosecutions are an entirely different manner. Prosecution are brought in the name of the Queen. Through her Crown Prosecutors, ol’ Lizzie herself dispenses justice to those charged with crimes. This isn’t some silly fiction, it’s the legal force behind the criminal prosecution; it’s what gives courts their very jurisdication to administer criminal laws.
Tradition aside, this is what makes me think that the Queen herself cannot be charged with criminal offences. IMHO, it would be a legal impossibility – I just don’t see a case R v R!
**Huh? Forgive my ignorance, but has there EVER even been a case where a British subject who commited a crime entirely within the United Kingdom was brought before an EU court?
Well, if all the British courts declined jurisdiction… the EU is very keen to see itself as the highest power in Europe…
Granted, the mere suggestion of turning the monarch over to a European court would probably start World War III, but we’re not discussing realities here…
But, in practice, a British court, if it had to, would accept jurisdiction. I’ll say it again: Charles I. Arrested, charged with a criminal offence (treason), tried before Parliament, convicted, executed. At that point, Parliament took upon itself the right to try the reigning monarch on criminal charges. To the best of my knowledge, it has never surrendered that right. (No, IANAL).
(Checking some records at this site, I discover that a special high court of justice was set up by Act of Parliament, partly, and I quote, “for prevention therefore of the like or greater inconveniences, and to the end no chief officer or magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume traitorously and maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing”. To me, that “hereafter” implies quite definitely that any future head of state who goes against Parliament’s wishes can expect the same treatment.)
Actually, all (well, almost all) the Acts of Parliament passed between 1642 and 1660, including that creating the High Court of Justice, were reversed in 1660 on the grounds that they had not received the royal assent. Thus, the trial of Charles I is not a valid legal precedent, but what it does provide is an example of how the concept of Crown immunity can be ignored. Anyone wishing to put the present Queen on trial would doubtless do what the regicides in 1649 did and resurrect the medieval doctrine of the King’s two bodies, which distinguished between the office of King (or Queen) and the person holding it. This is not a new problem, but there is nothing to stop old solutions being revived or new ones invented.
It only includes his personal staff. Hence the fact that the Peat inquiry is not going to consider the Queen’s role. And, no, he’s not looking into whether any of Charles’s servants acted as go-betweens to the Spencers or Windsors. No one has suggested that they did. The Burrell trial itself is only a side issue. The real issue are the various allegations about some of Charles’s servants which have emerged indirectly from the trial. (Put very simply, the fact that those allegations were referred to in court has allowed newspapers to print old rumours which the libel laws had previously discouraged them from publishing. Those papers would have been able to do so even if the trial had continued.) Of those allegations, the claim that the alleged rape of one of Charles’s servants by another of his servants was covered-up is clearly the most serious.
I’m astonished at how the real significance of the Peat inquiry has been missed. Does no one understand basic office politics?
Sir Michael Peat has only just taken over as Charles’s Private Secretary. Before then he was working for the Queen as her Keeper of the Privy Purse. When it was announced, the appointment was the subject of much speculation as it was, on paper, a demotion, although, for Peat, the obvious advantage was that it now places him in pole position to become Private Secretary to the King in the next reign. The assumption was that the Queen and Charles did a deal, whereby Charles gained the services of one of the Palace heavyweights while the Queen got her man placed in charge of Charles’s household in order that he could sort out the infighting between Charles’s staff. Of course, from Peat’s point of view, this mission was a high-risk one, because, as the outsider, there was a real danger that all his appointment would do is unite the rival factions within Charles’s household against him. Now suddenly the balance of power has shifted decisively in his favour. By persuading Charles to appoint him to head the inquiry, he has been given unprecedented powers to rummage through the cupboards looking for the skeletons. Sure, he might decide to bury some or all of those bodies, but, if he does so, he’ll know where he did so. From the point of view of the guilty men (assuming there are some), this is the worst possible development; not to put too fine a point on it, they’ve been completely screwed. More than anyone else, they really would prefer an independent inquiry.
I didn’t ask what’s in it for Michael Pete. I asked what’s in it for Charles? And frankly, I don’t think anyone outside the Palace cares about about the goings on among the staff. This is a high-risk thing to do if the goal is merely to shake up the staff.
Officially, AFAIK, this was a dead issue (in the legal sense) until Charles jumped in with his own investigation.
More recently, in the years before the first world war the then Liberal government wanted to raise land taxes in order to finance re-arming the Navy. The conservative dominated House of Lords blocked this Bill and the monarch (George V) threatened to flood the House with Liberal peers.
All this lead to the Parliament Act 1911 which restricts the power of the Lords in respect to finance Bills. They can now only delay their passage by 1 month as opposed to being able to reject them.
This was the last time that the monarch had a direct effect on the workings of Parliament (and on that occasion it was in support of the Commons so it was ok).
No. I threw the word “even” in to express my doubt as to the EU scenario; ie, if there hasn’t even been a case where an ordinary British subject was brought before an EU court, then it’s incredibly unlikely that the monarch and head of state of the country could be. Apologies for the sloppy wording.
It would be interesting to see where the Queen, as head of state of many countries, stood in regard to the proposed war crimes court.
Could she be held culpable for the behaviour of British, Canadian, Anzac, Jamaican etc troops and be tried a la Milosovich?
Now, we all know she doesn’t have day to day control of said troops but she would have to sign a decree to introduce martial law, and there also standing Queens Orders for use if we come under serious attack. So anything would be done in her name.
