Talk:High treason in the United Kingdom

message: This article deals almost exclusively with High Treason as defined in the United Kingdom through history and today. For instance the whole paragraph on Punishment deals entirely with how the English/GBR penal code was through history, while High Treason is defined in many other texts of law around the world. To take one famous example, Vidkun Quisling was convicted of High Treason. In Norway. And I assume there have been more convictions around the world since 1946 when the "last execution of any kind for high treason" was carried out.
Anyone willing to work on this article to make it less nation-specific? 
Moquel 19:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that "high treason" is an English expression.--Jack Upland 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the point is that this page is called high treason in the United Kingdom. That means this is therefore the article for discussing the United Kingdom. If you want an international perspective then look to the articles on high treason and treason. This is not the page for discussing Norway.Richard75 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nation specific? 

message: At the top, it is stated "Today, however, cases of treason are rare; the maximum punishment, during peacetime, is life imprisonment.", however down near the bottom it said " Since 1998, the maximum punishment for high treason became life imprisonment." Either life imprisonment is the maximum sentence during peacetime only or all the time. I guessed the former is correct but if not, remove references to during peacetime for the current situation... Nil Einne 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: also if it is during peactime only, it needs to be clarified at the bottom what's the maximum during wartime (I guess death) Nil Einne 18:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Life imprisonment during peacetime only?

message: I may be wrong, but strictly speaking wasn't Lady Jane Grey's treason that of denying the right of Parliament to settle the succession, rather than usurpation per se?  Silverhelm 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Jane Grey 

message: Surely Marcus Sarjeant, who was tried under the Treason Act 1842, in 1981 would be the most recent example of high treason, since he was charged under Section 2, for "wilfully discharging a revolver near the person of the Queen with intent to alarm her"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.17.187 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last trial in 1946? 

message: From the article:
:Treason (including constructive treason) is a reserved matter on which the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate.
There is no explanation anywhere of what "constructive treason" might be; I certainly don't know! Loganberry (Talk) 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See constructive treason. Richard75 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "constructive treason"? 

message: The Treason Act 1945 is listed by the Chronological Table of Statutes (2007) as being in force (short title in bold type). In particular, section 3 appears to still be in force in England and Wales because the 1967 Act only repealed ss. 1 & 2 and Sch. I appreciate that the Act seems to be completely spent, and I can't understand why CLA 1967 only partially repealed it, but I do not think that it is accurate to omit it from the list if it has not been wholly repealed. James500 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that seems to be true, all that seems to be left is the short title, and one spent subsection, so while it may not have actually been repealed, it is hard to say that it is still "in force," in the sense that it no longer seems to affect the law. It is not listed on the Statute Law Database. If you still want to add it anyway, better note that it is entirely repealed in Scotland (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980). Richard75 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts in Force today: Treason Act 1945 

message: Act of Supremacy (Ireland)
This situation is a bit confusing. The Victorian legislation decriminalised breaches of the Act of Supremacy, without amending the text of the Act. But then the 1998 Act amended the text to substitute life imprisonment for the death penalty. This is probably an oversight by the Parliamentary researchers, but it might nevertheless have had the effect of reviving the offence. I'm not sure what the article should say now though, since we need to avoid POV and OR. Any ideas? Richard75 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: To change the reference may not be strictly accurate. Section 36 of the 1998 Act does not provide the penalty for treason, which is what the reference now implies. What it does is to amend other Acts which in turn provide the penalty for treason. In Halsbury, they set out the Acts that provide the penalty for England and Wales in full. 
And the present text does not acknowledge section V of the 1708 Act which is what (in conjunction with the 1814 Act, which only applies to "all cases where the penalty is currently X") is what actually provides the penalty in Scotland, and isn't mentioned in the 1998 Act. James500 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is that a reference is only needed to verify that the paragraph is accurate, it doesn't need to set out every section which provides for the new penalty. However I agree that the new reference is misleading as it implies that section 36 says something it doesn't, so I will add some clarification. All I was trying to do was avoid having an unwieldy large set of references. Richard75 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Do that then. Richard75 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalty 

message: 'Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so.'
Can anyone tell me the Audit trail of  'an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so'.
I have Halsbury Rules of England but cannot quite match this up. 
I am currently claiming treason against the Judiciary in the UK Civil Courts on the grounds that alleged continual unconstitutional decisions by the courts, particularly a failure to give adequate reasons, amount to undermining the constitution = undermining the authority of the Sovereign. 
86.132.153.227 (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really accurate. There is not actually one crime of treason but several, listed in detail further down the article, which are collectively known as "treason." The first sentence of this article was somebody's attempt to summarise what treason is, but not very successfully and it seems to have caused some confusion. I have edited the sentence to cut that phrase out. What you need to do to find out what is or is not treason is look at the "Offences" section of the article. However Wikipedia is not really the place to get legal advice from. Richard75 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audit trail of  'an intention to undermine their authority, or the attempt to do so'.