Time to update the Treason act of 1531.
I agree with Policy Exchange who argue, in a new report, that the Treason Act of 1531 is out of date and should be replaced by a new law worded to fit the situation where treason no longer means backing the wrong side in an attempt to change the ruling dynasty. The existing law was written in the age when, as John Harington wrote in his immortal joke,
When that joke was made, "Treason" usually meant attempting to replace the current monarch with another - and of course, if such an attempt succeeded, accusing the new King or Queen and his or her supporters of treason was not conducive to your life expectancy.
The last serious attempt to change the dynasty through rebellion in this country for which the old definition of treason could reasonably be (and was) applied was defeated 272 years ago at the battle of Culloden. From the American war of Independence onwards - and that too is well over two centuries ago - the old idea of what treason is has looked increasingly outdated.
The need for an updated treason law was highlighted this week by the decision not to object to the suspects accused of being the two remaining members of the DA'ESH murder cell known as "The Beatles" being tried in the USA.
The individuals claim that they have been stripped of their British citizenship, and if this is true, treason would have been the wrong charge anyway had they been tried in this country - though if these suspects are who they are accused of being, they could be charged with the murders of aid workers Alan Hemming, David Haines and Peter Kassig and all the other innocent people killed by the notorious DA'ESH death squad.
Sooner or later the British courts are going to have to deal with a modern terrorist for whom an updated version of treason is the most appropriate charge. It would be as well to have a law which meets the needs of justice in the 21st century, rather than one drafted in the sixteenth, on the statute book for when that happens.
When that joke was made, "Treason" usually meant attempting to replace the current monarch with another - and of course, if such an attempt succeeded, accusing the new King or Queen and his or her supporters of treason was not conducive to your life expectancy.
The last serious attempt to change the dynasty through rebellion in this country for which the old definition of treason could reasonably be (and was) applied was defeated 272 years ago at the battle of Culloden. From the American war of Independence onwards - and that too is well over two centuries ago - the old idea of what treason is has looked increasingly outdated.
The need for an updated treason law was highlighted this week by the decision not to object to the suspects accused of being the two remaining members of the DA'ESH murder cell known as "The Beatles" being tried in the USA.
The individuals claim that they have been stripped of their British citizenship, and if this is true, treason would have been the wrong charge anyway had they been tried in this country - though if these suspects are who they are accused of being, they could be charged with the murders of aid workers Alan Hemming, David Haines and Peter Kassig and all the other innocent people killed by the notorious DA'ESH death squad.
Sooner or later the British courts are going to have to deal with a modern terrorist for whom an updated version of treason is the most appropriate charge. It would be as well to have a law which meets the needs of justice in the 21st century, rather than one drafted in the sixteenth, on the statute book for when that happens.
Comments