I mean besides ones of taste in hats or spoiling Corgis. I mean this only slightly tongue in cheek.
I was listening to BBC newshour and they mentioned that the judge in Saddam’s trial was arguing about what title or name to call him. That got me wondering about other figures of power and possible crimes. Politicians, piff-we know what happens to them (they get reelected). But what of figureheads?
Mind you, I am not impugning the Queen in any way. She doesn’t strike me as the criminal type.
But what would happen if she (or another major Royal–not some minor peer-I’m talking Mounbatten-Windsors here) was found to be shoplifting or embezzling?
How about something really bad like spousal abuse or child molestation?
Not the generic crimes against humanity stuff–I mean murder or kidnapping-something heinous.
What happens? Is she tried in the Upper House? (aren’t most of those people relatives of hers?).
Kidding aside (I loved that movie), in that case, she’d be off the hook. That scene was set in the U.S., not in the UK, and as such, she would probably have been covered under diplomatic immunity.
Do we know for certain that she’s covered? I mean, technically she’s a head of state, but doesn’t really spoke for the UK’s GOVERNMENT, more for its people.
Why am I thinking the State Department 800# doesn’t have the answer to this?
I’d imagine it’s one of those things where it happens so rarely we don’t really need to have a set written procedure for it - we’ll just work it out if we get to that point.
Of course, that would provide lots of fun as pundits speculate what would actually happen during 24-hour media coverage of the “Royal Road Rage” debacle. Maybe we’d get to see another low-speed car chase!
I believe that the Nuremburg Trials established that no head of state had immunity from prosecution for grave crimes (presumably Genocide and other crimes against humanity).
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that HoS have immunity from ‘normal’ crimes, at least according to this document from the Duke Law Journal.
All prosecutions are done (theoretically) on behalf of the Queen; as you can’t act in court against yourself, she can’t be prosecuted for breaking the law.
Really? What about her dog? Did she not scoop the poop? Or was it really serious, like she didn’t get her rabies shot (the DOG, smartmouths!).
I find this HoS immunity boring–I want to see Lizzie in the dock! Ok, maybe not Her Majesty, but Phil…
Since you all have no written constitution as such etc–does British common law accord ER special status above criminal charges?
All I know is that a peer of the realm gets to be hanged with silk instead of hemp. Since capital punishment is outlawed in UK, that fact doesn’t help me (much).
Well, the Queen is constantly accompanied by police everywhere she goes. They are there for her protection, but everything she does is in their sight. It would be simply impossible for her even to attempt anything illegal. If she did attempt to shoplift a packet of ciggies, she would be instantly surrounded by half a dozen cops, asking her “I wonder if that is a terribly wise move, Ma’am?”
If she went ahead and did it anyway, she would face charges, just like anyone else.
“Be you never so high, the Law is above you” - Lord Denning.
This sounds oddly archaic and unfitting when compared to how liberal and democratic the UK is in day-to-day affairs these days. I’d be willing to bet that if the monarch were to commit a serious crime, prosecution would proceed regardless of what theoretical basis would appear to act against it. The monarch would probably be deposed first, however.
That sounds alot like a governor couldn’t be prosecuted, as leader of a state.
That doesn’t make sense–we just convicted a (former) governor here in IL. I disremember if he was accused during his time in office, but nevertheless, he was brought into court to testify etc.
Would she be made to stand in the dock or could she sit? (do you all still make the accused stand up the whole time?). Lots of questions over here.
Ah, there’s a difference. Over there I believe prosecutions are brought on behalf of the state; over here it’s on behalf not of the nation but the Queen herself.
Yes, technically. It is possible for the Queen to break the law, but I don’t believe she can be censured for it (legally, anyway). If the Queen stole a packet of cigarettes, she as a citizen of the UK has broken a law. However, she cannot be brought to justice as lawsuits are brought on behalf of the Queen in her role as the source of justice (“Queen vs. Queen”). I don’t think there’s anything stopping someone bringing a civil suit against her, as that would then be a matter between her and that person/organisation, but I could be wrong.
