As far as I can make out, the Treason Act of 1351 is still in force in the United Kingdom (later acts brought the Act into force in Scotland, so it’s correct to state “United Kingdom” and not “England and Wales” here). Now, I have two questions:
[ul]
[li]As far as I can make out, to be found guilty of High Treason in the UK you must have some fealty to the Sovereign, is that correct? So, for instance, a German tourist cannot be charged with High Treason?[/li][li]With this in mind, how does the Treason Act interact with the nationals of other Commonwealth Realms? For instance, suppose an Australian plotted the murder of the Queen while visiting the UK. Does the fact that they have some fealty to the Queen of Australia imply that they are in fact guilty of treason in the United Kingdom, given that the sovereign is the same person in both cases? Or will they need to be sent back to Australia to face treason charges?[/li][/ul]
This point in the analysis is incorrect. The courts have held that even a person temporarily in the country owes a temporary allegiance to the monarch, regardless of nationality, and therefore can be charged under the Act.
The most notable example was R. v. Riel in the Canadian courts. Riel was Canadian but had moved to the US and become an American citizen. He later returned and led the 1885 rebellion. He was charged under the 1351 Act (which was in force in Canada at the time) and was convicted, even though he was an American.
OK, but did the fact that he was born a Canadian really have no bearing on the issue? The Canadian courts found that anybody, even my hypothetical German tourist, could be charged under the 1351 Act, or was it more nuanced than that?
I think it was based on the assumption that he had lost his British subject status, but it’s been a while.
Here’s a non-hypothetical: Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce) - born in the US of Irish parents; falsely took out a British passport when not eligible: fled to Germany prior to WWII; did propaganda work for the German reich against Britain; convicted and hanged for treason after the war; possession of a British passport was enough to trigger allegiance to the Crown, even though he had also formally renounced any British status he may have had.
Although I recognize your expertise in Commonwealth law, this seems like a very sweeping statement. Is mere presence on UK soil enough to trigger a temporary allegiance to the Queen, no matter how short? I ask because both cases cited, the treasonous person had identifiable links to the UK. To put a hypothetical forward: I (IRL) am a U.S. citizen born and raised here and have never set foot in the U.K. The only oath I ever took was to uphold and defend the U.S. constitution. Let’s suppose I’m on an international flight making a fuel stop at Heathrow on the way to another destination. I have no visa to enter the UK and I never deplane or pass through customs. Do I have a temporary allegiance to the Queen even though I never officially entered the country? If I manage a magical rifle shot from the plane door into the Queen’s brainpan, did I commit treason?
The complication in Joyce’s case was, of course, that his offences were committed in Germany and so he could not be prosecuted on the basis of ligeantia localis. Hence the need for the prosecution to rely on the falsely-obtained passport.
Let’s flip it around: if during your short stay in the UK, on the airplane, you were assaulted by one of the other passengers, would you expect the UK law enforcement agents to assist you? Would you be upset if they just let the other passenger beat on you, saying, “He’s a foreigner - let’s not get involved?” Would you find it odd if Her Majesty’s courts wouldn’t accept your civil action against the other passenger for assault, because you were a foreigner?
Allegiance is not a one-way street, but mutual obligations: subjects/citizens have the obligation to obey the law, and the sovereign has the corresponding obligation of protection. By coming to the UK, you gain the benefits and burdens of the local allegiance.