[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t that depend on whether she was acting as Queen, or as a private person?
[QUOTE=Sunspace]
Doesn’t that depend on whether she was acting as Queen, or as a private person?
[/QUOTE]
Can she even act as a private person?
[QUOTE=Szlater]
Can she even act as a private person?
[/QUOTE]
Please, that’s private Personage. 
So, basically, the Queen can get away with murder.
It’s good to be Queen!
Hopefully she’s be presured into abdicating to prevent a constitutional crisis. Otherwise Parliament would try to depose her. I imagine this would only be a major issue if this were a serious crime, as opposed to something like a speeding ticket or littering.
I suspect that were the Sovereign to commit some genuinely serious offense ( My loyal subjects and people, stick ‘em up) the republican movement in the UK would receive a significant boost. The last king who claimed sovereign immunity did come to a bad end. When an American president asserted immunity from the ordinary rules and process he had his butt impeached, but resigned before he could be convicted.
The British monarchy my not survive the ascension of Charles, it certainly could not survive his mother being caught running a meth lab.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
That sounds alot like a governor couldn’t be prosecuted, as leader of a state.
[/QUOTE]
Criminal prosecution in US states are done on behalf of The People or The State, not the governor.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
But what would happen if she … was found to be shoplifting
[/QUOTE]
A longstanding retail tradition is that if the Queen is visiting your establishment and expresses interest in any item, you give it to her as a gift. (And your store then makes it up in the free publicity, and advertising “as used by the Queen” (but not quite the same as “by appointment to the Queen”).)
So shoplifting is never likely to occur.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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”).
[/QUOTE]
Actually, aren’t criminal suits brought by the “Crown”, rather than the queen herself? I’m not sure what exactly the distinction between “crown” and “monarch” is, except that I’m pretty sure there is one. I’m not sure if this is the same thing, but the beheading of Charles I for treason clearly demonstrated that there is a distinction between “monarch” and “sovereign”.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Regarding civil suit, look up sovereign immunity [1]. Usually comes into play when you try to sue your government.
Under the law from a couple hundred years back, which I suspect hasn’t been repealed on paper but perhaps has been repealed de facto, you’d basically need her permission to sue her.
I could have sworn this came up before and the answer was parliment would make here not-queen, and then she would no longer be immune from prosecution.
Brian
When I was a kid…
…the Queen killed my dad.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
A longstanding retail tradition is that if the Queen is visiting your establishment and expresses interest in any item, you give it to her as a gift. (And your store then makes it up in the free publicity, and advertising “as used by the Queen” (but not quite the same as “by appointment to the Queen”).)
So shoplifting is never likely to occur.
[/QUOTE]
Oy. There seems to be a certain er, lack of creative thinking going on in this thread. Obviously, if any HoS “expressed an interest” in an item, it most likely would be given to them as a gift, no matter the country. (Bush Sr once ate in a local restaurant here in town–his meal was no charge).
I’m talking about deviousness–the Queen nipping stuff into her handbag whilst pretending a deep interest in the nattering on of the hoi polloi. This would take some sleight of hand, but I think she’s up to it. Then the crime would be discovered by her handbag’s bursting open in the street…
Come to think of it, she is almost pathologically attached to that handbag…hmm…
OR
Queen is so tired of doing walkabouts and sooo tired of the same questions again and again…she goes bezerk on day and starts beating a man from Wigan over the head with her umbrella/handbag. This particular opening of a supermarket was not deemed important enough for the BBC to send TV coverage, so home videos and camera phones capture the mayhem. Mysteriously, all the video and phone people are found to have left the country or die, suddenly…
OR
Queen decides she cannot stand the [del]Rotweiler[/del]Camilla–she’s worse than that Spencer girl, hands down. Something Must Be Done. So, putting some extra doses of sleeping tablets into her handbag, she goes off to visit the newest Duchess.
Scotland Yard is called in at Charles’ insistence and…curses! Her fingerprints are all over the teacup! What’s a monarch to do?
That type of thing.
It sounds like petty crime is a non-starter for Royals. Capital crimes are a Parlimentary issue, if I’m following you all. But is it a matter for both houses or just Lords?
[QUOTE=Spavined Gelding]
When an American president asserted immunity from the ordinary rules and process he had his butt impeached, but resigned before he could be convicted.
[/QUOTE]
Er… Had his butt NEARLY impeached, but resigned before the full House could vote on the articles of impeachment.
[QUOTE=Twotwofive]
Actually, aren’t criminal suits brought by the “Crown”, rather than the queen herself? I’m not sure what exactly the distinction between “crown” and “monarch” is, except that I’m pretty sure there is one. I’m not sure if this is the same thing, but the beheading of Charles I for treason clearly demonstrated that there is a distinction between “monarch” and “sovereign”.
[/QUOTE]
Not really; remember, there had just been a war between him and parliament, so it’s not exactly a normal situation ;). Charles I was a special case - I believe parliament had to pass new legislation just to allow them to arrest him, let alone let him stand trial. And he himself refused to participate, as he thought they had no ability to make him, a King, stand trial.
I’m pretty sure that the Crown and the current head of state are considered inextricable, legally; you can’t sue one without suing the other.
[QUOTE=N9IWP]
I could have sworn this came up before and the answer was parliment would make here not-queen, and then she would no longer be immune from prosecution.
Brian
[/QUOTE]
Could you prosecute the ex-Queen for something she did whilst acting as the Queen? If the Queen can truly never act as an individual (i.e. she is never off-duty) then wouldn’t she be protected from prosecution from crimes commited as the Queen forever? In my mind it is analagous to prosecuting an officer of the law or a soldier once they have retired for doing something which, at the time they did it, was perfectly allowable for someone in their job.
[QUOTE=Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed.), 1974, Vol. 8 - “Constitutional Law”, para. 966]
Proceedings against the Sovereign in her private capacity
At common law no proceeding, civil or criminal, was maintainable against the Sovereign in person[sup]1[/sup], for it was said that as the courts were her own they could have no jurisdiction over her[sup]2[/sup]. These rules continue to apply to the Sovereign in her private capacity[sup]3[/sup].
1 Wardens and Commonalty of Sadlers’ Case (1588) 4 Co Rep 54b at 55a; Bac Abr, Prerogative, E 1; Bac Abr, Actions, B; 1 Bl Com (14th Edn) 245.
2 1 Bl Com (14th Edn) 242. As Maitland points out, no lord could be compelled to answer in his own court: see 1 Pollock and Maitland’s History of English Law (2nd Edn) 518. So far was this reasoning carried that the Crown could not be compelled to become a party to an interpleader issue (The Mogileff (1921) 38 TLR 71; affd. [1923] P 122, CA); but cf. now the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s. 16. See further CROWN PROCEEDINGS.
3 Ibid., s. 40 (1). "Her Majesty in her private capacity " includes Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster and includes the Duke of Cornwall; s. 38 (3)
[/QUOTE]
So, looks like the English courts do not have criminal urisdiction over Ma’am.
[QUOTE=Szlater]
Can she even act as a private person?
[/QUOTE]
SEveral years ago I posted a long entry answering this question, in response to an inquiry from matt_mcl and DSYoungEsq, but I can’t make the search hamsters find it.
Short answer is, yes, Her Majesty can act in a private civil capacity, and can sue, and be sued by, ordinary subjects, in relation to her private estates and property.
If anyone is more imaginative than I am in prodding the search hamsters into work, I hope the thread is still there, somewhere.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
Hopefully she’s be presured into abdicating to prevent a constitutional crisis.
[/quote]
I think this is the practical, realpolitik answer to the question.
Of course, there is the problem that HM is part of Parliament, and her consent is needed for any bill to become law, include a bill of deposement or abdication. There is the precedent of the Convention Parliament that handled the James II matter, but it still has an asterisk beside it.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
Short answer is, yes, Her Majesty can act in a private civil capacity, and can sue, and be sued by, ordinary subjects, in relation to her private estates and property.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine.
Am I reading that first quote wrong? From what I understand from the first quote the courts have no jurisdiction over the Queen and that this continues to be the case even when the Queen is acting in a private capacity. However, your second comment gives me the impression that the Queen can be sued in a private capacity, which is right?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I think they attacked someone. I could be wrong, though.
[/QUOTE]
“they attacked”? you mean Princess Anne and her dog were running in a pack and turned on someone? the horrors!