Not going to work

The Queen was reported to police for not wearing a seatbelt as she travelled to the State Opening of Parliament in her official call.

West Yorkshire Police said they received a 999 call about the royal journey.

You never really know these days, good joke or just some twat.

Under UK law, civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Queen.

Quite, R. v R. would be a bit of a problem.

27 comments on “Not going to work

  1. Then let’s see WYP charging the caller with wasting police time. That’ll nip this sort of thing in the bud sharpish.

  2. At the very least it’s wasting the time of the 999 call handler. Any person, monarch or otherwise, not wearing a seatbelt hardly constitutes an emergency.

  3. “Good joke or a bit of a twat?”

    Well in Dennis Skinner’s case a bit more than a bit.

  4. John said:
    “There is a case R v R [1991] which overturned the common law position on marital rape.”

    In that case the second R was the man’s initial.

    However the Crown can effectively take action against itself, by using two hats (or crowns?); R v Secretary of State, for example, where the Sec of State is in his capacity as a Crown officer rather than an individual (so the actual individual SofS who did the thing complained of might be different to the one now in office facing the legal action).

  5. What Julia said.

    Stupid bastards. Mind you the chances of WYP taking the intelligent way out are miniscule to microscopic.

    Still they’re probably not so bad as the malevolently incompetent SYP.

  6. For vintage cars you are allowed to not wear a seat belt, given they can’t be fitted reasonably.

  7. Same deal with POTUS.

    Yet . . .

    ‘Mueller investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Washington Post reports’

    The president is exempt from prosecution. Period. Mueller, if true, is displaying political corruption and/or malfeasance.

  8. SE, West Yorkshire police can certainly investigate criminality alleged in London. Police here don’t lose their powers the moment they cross from one police area to another.

    In reality, though, what would happen is that WYP would either refer it to the Met for investigation, or they’d do it themselves, but London CPS would make the charging decision.

    Or at least, they might all go to the trouble of making it look like they were doing something, before binning it.

  9. If HM did anything naughty- trial by parliament i suppose…. or war.

    When the trial of Charles I took place in 1649, he was essentially charged with high treason in a personal capacity rather than in his role as King.

    Thus, if the charges had been laid against him today, it wouldn’t have been “Rex v Rex”, but rather “Rex v Charles Stuart”.

    Similarly, if charges were to be brought against Brenda, they would be in her personal capacity, therefore “Regina v Elizabeth Windsor”.

    The immunity that the Queen holds derives from her role as sovereign, while that protects her from prosecution for actions undertaken in that role, it does not provide her from prosecution for actions undertaken in a purely personal capacity.

    The difficulty would be that the competent authority in this would be the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who would either determine that crown immunity applied or that such a prosecution was “not in the interests of the public”.

    About the only exception to this would be murder. So if Brenda decided she’d had enough of Brian’s bullshit and cut off his head to stop him from destroying the monarchy, then clearly she would either have to be forced to waive her sovereign immunity to allow the prosecution to take place or the CPS would have to determine that the actions were undertaken in a private capacity rather than in her role as sovereign.

    In either circumstance, I suspect she would be forced to abdicate before being tried as trying a current monarch raised enough problems last time around.

  10. So if Brenda decided she’d had enough of Brian’s bullshit and cut off his head to stop him from destroying the monarchy, then clearly she would either have to be forced to waive her sovereign immunity to allow the prosecution to take place or the CPS would have to determine that the actions were undertaken in a private capacity rather than in her role as sovereign.

    What if she’d commanded “Off with his head?” Hard to argue she’s acting in a personal capacity then.

  11. What if she’d commanded “Off with his head?” Hard to argue she’s acting in a personal capacity then.

    No, but then instead of the specific act of murder it would be categorised as one of the inchoate actions of either “conspiracy to murder” or “incitement to murder”, depending upon the specific circumstances.

  12. John Galt said:
    “The immunity that the Queen holds derives from her role as sovereign, while that protects her from prosecution for actions undertaken in that role, it does not provide her from prosecution for actions undertaken in a purely personal capacity.”

    Are you sure about that? I thought it was personal as well. Diplomatic immunity, for example, applies to everything (otherwise it would be too easy to manufacture a claim of personal illegality).

  13. Monarch/POTUS exemption must be universal. Else some minor court could bring murder charges against them. Separation of powers. The judiciary can’t disrupt the executive.

    U.S. courts are overturning Trump’s travel ban, based on they don’t like Trump. If they could file criminal charges they would, whether Trump had done anything or not.

  14. Are you sure about that? I thought it was personal as well. Diplomatic immunity, for example, applies to everything (otherwise it would be too easy to manufacture a claim of personal illegality).

    Well, unfortunately there is only one example in British history, that of Charles the First, but in that circumstance the person of Charles the First and the crown were separated to allow the prosecution to take place.

    If the Queen had committed murder then the same approach have to be taken again, but as I say, there is not much precedent for it.

    Anything trivial would be ignored on the basis of “not in the public interest” or sovereign immunity, but letting a British sovereign get away with murder would be unacceptable as well.

  15. Well, unfortunately there is only one example in British history, that of Charles the First, but in that circumstance the person of Charles the First and the crown were separated to allow the prosecution to take place.

    And that was just a show trial; the verdict and sentence had already been decided by the ringleaders, but they needed a semblance of due process to justify it to the rest.

  16. “letting a British sovereign get away with murder would be unacceptable as well”

    Then where does James Bond get his license to kill, if HRM can’t authorize it?

  17. British sovereigns getting away with murder would be worse than unacceptable. it would be sordid and humourless.

    Still, no point in having an enormously experienced and well-respected Head of State if you’re not going to use her.

    Rather than executions, some sort of Crown court could be established along the lines of Auberon Waugh’s Bad Sex Award, dishing out corrective humiliations to the nations most sanctimonious prigs.

    Faced with Polly Toynbee, what would Wodehouse do?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.