NSW 1900 crimes ACT section 16

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 16
Nothing herein to affect 25 Ed III, c 2
16 Nothing herein to affect 25 Ed III, c 2
Nothing contained in this Part shall lessen the force of, or in any matter affect, anything enacted by the Statute passed in the twenty-fifth year of King Edward the Third “A declaration which offences shall be adjudged Treason”.


do you think the courts would aloue the case to go a head for high teason see 1351 act for high and low treason this is in the 1900 crimes act of NSW ? this act has never been repealed as far as i know in NSW and hears what 1351 act looks like who dont know it.

Main article: High treason in the United Kingdom
The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2) which attempted to codify all existing forms of treason. No new offences were created by the statute.[1] It is one of the earliest English statutes still in force, although it has been very significantly amended. It was extended to Ireland in 1495 and to Scotland in 1708. The Act was passed at Westminster in the Hilary term of 1351, in the 25th year of the reign of Edward III and was entitled "A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason". It was passed to clarify precisely what was treason, as the definition under common law had been expanded rapidly by the courts until its scope was controversially wide. The Act was last used to prosecute William Joyce in 1945 for collaborating with Germany in World War II.

This Act forms part of the law of New South Wales, Australia.

It was repealed for the Republic of Ireland[2] on 16 May 1983,[3] and for New Zealand[4] on 1 January 1962.[5]

Contents [hide]
1 Content
2 The Act in Scotland
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Content
The Act distinguishes two varieties of treason: high treason and petty treason, the first being disloyalty to the Sovereign, and the second being disloyalty to a subject. The practical distinction was the consequence of being convicted: for a high treason, the penalty was death by hanging, drawing and quartering (for a man) or drawing and burning (for a woman), and the traitor's property would escheat to the Crown; in the case of a petty treason the penalty was drawing and hanging without quartering, or burning without drawing; and property escheated only to the traitor's immediate lord.

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:

"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned) the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir;
violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir;
levied war against the King in his Realm or adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;
counterfeited the Great Seal or the Privy Seal (reduced to felony in 1861);
counterfeited English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage (reduced to felony in 1832);
killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre, an Assize judge, and "all other Justices," while they are performing their offices. (This did not include the barons of the Exchequer.[6])
The penalty for counterfeiting coins was the same as for petty treason.[7]

Under the Act petty treason was the murder of one's lawful superior: that is if a servant kills his master, a wife her husband or a clergyman his prelate. This offence was abolished in 1828.

The Act originally contained a curious feature (now repealed), in that it envisaged that further forms of treason would arise that would not be covered by the act, so it legislated for this possibility:

“ And because that many other like Cases of Treason may happen in Time to come, which a Man cannot think nor declare at this present Time; it is accorded, That if any other Case, supposed Treason, which is not above specified, doth happen before any Justices, the Justices shall tarry without any going to Judgement of the Treason till the Cause be shewed and declared before the King and his Parliament, whether it ought to be judged Treason or other Felony. ”

[edit] The Act in Scotland
Following the union of England and Scotland by the Acts of Union 1707, Scotland continued to have its own treason laws until 1708, when an act of the British Parliament abolished Scottish treason law and extended English treason law to Scotland. The Treason Act 1708 also made it treason to counterfeit the Great Seal of Scotland, and to kill the Scottish Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary (in addition to forging the British - formerly English - seal, and killing English judges). However while in England and Ireland forgery of the seal of Great Britain ceased to be treason in 1861, this change did not take place in Scotland until years later. Also, forging the Scottish seal is still treason in Scotland, but has not been treason in England or Ireland since 1861.

The 1351 Act still applies in Scotland today, and is a reserved matter which the Scottish Parliament has no power to modify.

[edit] See also
Treason
Treason Act
Treason Act 1495 (special defence to treason)
Treason Act 1695 (statute of limitations)
Treason Act 1702 (further form of treason)
Treason Act 1708 (further forms of treason)
Treason Act 1814 (the penalty for treason)
Treason Felony Act 1848 (still-existing offences which used to be treason)
[edit] References
^ The Rights of Persons, According to the Text of Blackstone: Incorporating the Alterations Down to the Present Time, Sir William Blackstone and James Stewart, 1839, p.77
^ The Statute Law Revision Act 1983, section 1 [1] and the Schedule [2]
^ The date of royal assent.
^ The Crimes Act 1961, section 412(1) and Schedule 4
^ The Crimes Act 1961, section 1(2)
^ Hawkins' Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1824) p. 19, section 47, (from Google Books).
^ Hale's History of Pleas of the Crown (1800 ed.) vol. 1, pages 219-220 (from Google Books).
[edit] External links
Official text of the statute as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
[show]v • d • eUnited Kingdom legislation

Acts of Parliament by states preceding
the Kingdom of Great Britain Acts of Parliament of England to 1601 · 1603–1641 · Interregnum (1642–1660) · 1660–1699 · 1700–1706
Acts of Parliament of Scotland
Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700 · 1701–1800



Acts of Parliament of the
Kingdom of Great Britain 1707–1719 · 1720–1739 · 1740–1759 · 1760–1779 · 1780–1800


Acts of Parliament of The United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland and The United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1801–1819 · 1820–1839 · 1840–1859 · 1860–1879 · 1880–1899 · 1900–1919 · 1920–1939 · 1940–1959 · 1960–1979 · 1980–1999 · 2000 to date


Church of England Measures List · Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919


Legislation of Devolved institutions Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly · Northern Ireland Parliament · Scottish Parliament
Measures of the Welsh Assembly
Orders in Council for Northern Ireland


Secondary legislation United Kingdom Statutory Instruments · Scottish Statutory Instruments · Act of Sederunt



Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1351"
Categories: Acts of the Parliament of England | Acts of the Parliament of England still in force | 1351 in law | 1351 in England | English criminal law | Treason | Money forgery
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August 2008 | All articles needing additional referencesViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsTry Beta Log in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
Languages
Italiano

This page was last modified on 13 October 2009 at 13:45.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
 
Can a case go ahead under section 16 or not. And i think of the three people that have just been sent down for for terrorist just this week why they where not charged under section 16 of the NSW 1900 crimes act that's all .
 

Cook

Banned
Ok, thanks.

To me it’d be a can of worms that you just don’t want to open. Convict someone of treason and you’ve just made him a “Political Prisoner”.

Far better to stick with something that you know you can present to a jury and get a conviction on. If you go asking twelve random twits to lock someone up for treason I think you’ll get nowhere.

Interesting question though but that court case was plenty long enough anyway.

 

Cook

Banned
Dunno.
I thought Capital Punishment had been repealed throughout Australia.

Remember that just because we have a law on the books does not mean that it will necessarily be enforced. That’s one of the great things about our country, we maintain a flexible approach and allow common sense in government, police and the courts.

I don’t think anyone could hope to get a conviction for treason.
 
Statute of Treasons. Still good law in New Zealand and UK. And, apparently, Australia (though surely a charge of treason would be a federal offence?).

People have been charged under it, and convicted within living memory. Lord Haw Haw being one notable example.

You couldn't charge them under S16 of the Crimes Act, though, that Section just explicitly preserves 25 Edw III. The charge would be laid under 25 Edw III.
 

Cook

Banned
Yes but Lord Haw Haw was working for an Enemy Combatant Nation, in that nation, during a declared war against a recognised nation. There was nothing ambiguous about the case. And he was tried and convicted shortly after the end of the war when the wounds were still fresh, emotions high and blood running hot.

Did he deserve the death penalty for talking on the radio? Probably not but I for one won’t shed any tears for the miscarriage of justice against a Nazi collaborator.

That’s very different to what is being asked here. As I said, you have to be confident of a conviction.

Far safer to convict on firearms, explosives, the new terrorism laws etc.

Anything that has us drift towards “Political Convictions” is way too shifty for my liking.

And as I said, just because it’s on the books doesn’t mean we’ll ever use it.
 
Actually, Mr Joyce's case was quite ambiguous. He was an American citizen, and the defence argued that , as such, he owed no allegiance to the King (the USA had not proceeded against him - had the defence argument succeeded, they might have done so of course).

The case hinged upon the fact that Joyce (who had British parents, I think) had obtained a British passport. That , placing himself beneath the protection of the King , and requiring a corresponding duty of loyalty from him. It was a close run case, and even today it may be argued that it was decided more on emotion than law. And perhaps more upon justice than law, but, as the old saying goes, law and justice are but indifferent acquaintances - when they pass they salute but do not embrace.

However, it would not be appropriate , IMHO, to lay a charge under the Statute of Treasons for "terrorist" type offences.

Leaving aside the "oddity" provisions of the Act, we have two principle causes : that they accused


  • compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned) the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir;
  • levied war against the King in his Realm or adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;
Now, I doubt that any of the terrorists compass or imagine the death of the Queen . And the statute is clear that it is the monarch , not the state, which is thus protected. Granted there has been some (old) case law which extends that to a construction whereby attempting to overthrow the state is treasonable, but only because such an overthrow would be considered incompatible with the continuation of the monarchy - and the old precept that the overthrow of the monarch is tantamount to death. But I do not think there is any strong evidence that the terrorist acts we see today are aimed at overthrowing the state.

And as neither Australia , nor the UK are actually at war, and as the terrorist groups do not represent any official state anyway, there is no "levying of war". Insurrection, perhaps, but that is a different crime.

The authorities, quite properly, proceed against terrorists on the basis of their acts, as being criminal , rather than political (treason is a _political_ act).

So I do not think that there is likely to be any charge laid under the Treasons Act . Hpowever, teh Act still has its teeth - there was serious consideration of charging Mr Ian Smith with treason, and in fact the Rhodesian government were dismissed form office with that official condemnation . Getting hold of him was the problem.

More lately, the coup in Fiji was denounced as treason (which it almost certainly was).

So we cannot discount the possibility of someone being charged in the future. But, treason requires something more serious than "merely" blowing people up. That is murder, and can be quite adequately dealt with as such.

(Incidentally, treason does not require anybody to be killed. merely some overt act)

EDIT:

Did he deserve the death penalty for talking on the radio


It should be noted that he was not convicted of 'talking on the radio'. Rather, he was convicted of adhering to the King's enemy. The radio broadcasts merely provided the "overt act" required by the law.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
If you are going to quote me at least use the full statement.

I said he was working for an Enemy Comb bent Nation, he was tried shortly after the war when emotions were high and as far as most were concerned all he did was talk on the radio. Legal technicalities were not going to get in the way of him being hanged.

The original question concerned Australian law, not British. While Australia has many laws on the books that are carried over from the colonial and Dominion periods that have not been amended or repealed, there is practically zero chance of their being used and any attempt to do so would just result in them case being thrown out and the law being changed. In this situation it is not just the law that counts, it’s the culture of the people applying the law.

Australians have a different mindset and world view to British.
 
If you are going to quote me at least use the full statement.

I said he was working for an Enemy Comb bent Nation, he was tried shortly after the war when emotions were high and as far as most were concerned all he did was talk on the radio. Legal technicalities were not going to get in the way of him being hanged.



Oh dear, I do hope that legal technicalities would "get in the way" of anyone being hung, if those technicalities meant that they had not actually broken the law. That's sort of what the law is supposed to be about. Outside Jedborough, anyway.

The original question concerned Australian law, not British. While Australia has many laws on the books that are carried over from the colonial and Dominion periods that have not been amended or repealed, there is practically zero chance of their being used and any attempt to do so would just result in them case being thrown out and the law being changed. In this situation it is not just the law that counts, it’s the culture of the people applying the law.


Yes. You cited it. Crimes Act 1900. Which expressly preserves the Statute of Treasons (as amended, etc)

So, that Statute is still a part of the corpus of Australian Law. Until repealed.

And if someone WERE validly charged under it (though that is unlikely, for the reasons given) then the case cannot simply be "thrown out". The law is the law. Fiat justicia, ruat coelum and so on. The defence cannot say "Yes,, my client is guilty. But the law is too old, the case must be thrown out". Nor, indeed is the Act an old one . The Australian drafters saw fit to preserve it in 1900. That is only 110 years ago. There are much older Acts still in force.

Australians have a different mindset and world view to British.


Sigh. We know . It's the heat. And the dust. And the lack of water. Very trying. We do our best to civilise our Trans-Tasman cousins, but it's a hard slog.
 

Cook

Banned
And if someone WERE validly charged under it (though that is unlikely, for the reasons given) then the case cannot simply be "thrown out". The law is the law. Fiat justicia, ruat coelum and so on. The defence cannot say "Yes,, my client is guilty. But the law is too old, the case must be thrown out". Nor, indeed is the Act an old one . The Australian drafters saw fit to preserve it in 1900. That is only 110 years ago. There are much older Acts still in force.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The defence wouldn’t have to state it.

The prosecution has to stand up in front of Twelve Random Twits and explain to them why they have to take it upon themselves to say “Yes, lock this man up”.

If said jury members have never even heard of the law you are saying the defendant has broken you haven’t got a chance.

And again, this would never get past the common sense filter.
 
Following the union of England and Scotland by the Acts of Union 1707, Scotland continued to have its own treason laws until 1708, when an act of the British Parliament abolished Scottish treason law and extended English treason law to Scotland. The Treason Act 1708 also made it treason to counterfeit the Great Seal of Scotland, and to kill the Scottish Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary (in addition to forging the British - formerly English - seal, and killing English judges). However while in England and Ireland forgery of the seal of Great Britain ceased to be treason in 1861, this change did not take place in Scotland until years later. Also, forging the Scottish seal is still treason in Scotland, but has not been treason in England or Ireland since 1861.

The 1351 Act still applies in Scotland today, and is a reserved matter which the Scottish Parliament has no power to modify.
I'm away to forge the seal....:D
 
The 1351 Act still applies in Scotland today, and is a reserved matter which the Scottish Parliament has no power to modify.

Somewhere, Edward III's having a great laugh that nearly 700 years later, the Scots have no power to repeal his treason law... :)
 

Cook

Banned
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
:p

 
The defence wouldn’t have to state it.

The prosecution has to stand up in front of Twelve Random Twits and explain to them why they have to take it upon themselves to say “Yes, lock this man up”.

If said jury members have never even heard of the law you are saying the defendant has broken you haven’t got a chance.

And again, this would never get past the common sense filter.

Not so , I am afraid. The jury deliberate upon the facts of the case, the judge determines the law.

Whether the jury have heard of the law in question is entirely irrelevant. Indeed, in probably the majority of cases heard by jury they do not know what specific statute the accused is charged under. The judge explains that to them. They must only determine whether the facts laid before them be true or not.

I can assure you that in that regard Australia is no different to the other members of the British jurisprudential corpus.

A defence counsel who stood up and argued "My client has no case to answer, the law is too old" would himself be laughed out of court (and probably disbarred, if that was the best service he could render his client).
 

Cook

Banned
All you would be doing putting someone in jail for a “Political” Crime. It would not be in anyone’s interest. Each of the recent terrorist cases have avoided the issue and the individuals concerned have been prosecuted specifically for their actions. Their attempts at theatrics in the court over their claims to only be loyal to Allah etc have been ignored totally.

Consider what would have happened if David Hicks had been put on trial?

 
If Hicks was in Australian hands, would he have been tried by a civil or military court? IIRC he was captured as an enemy combatant, which put him out of the reach of civil courts, at least intially. Additionally, I don't believe that I recall hearing that he actually fought Australian troops, which makes treason hard to make.

Regardless, the jury doesn't need to know what he's being tried for - the Judge instructs the jury as to what they should be deliberating over, and rules based on that. I think it'd be safe to say that there'd be a near-endless series of appeals to higher authorities from both sides, which would end up with a final decision probably sometime around this year, at enormous cost to the taxpayer.
 
17inc said:
NSW 1900 crimes ACT section 16
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 16
Nothing herein to affect 25 Ed III, c 2
16 Nothing herein to affect 25 Ed III, c 2
Nothing contained in this Part shall lessen the force of, or in any matter affect, anything enacted by the Statute passed in the twenty-fifth year of King Edward the Third “A declaration which offences shall be adjudged Treason”.

do you think the courts would aloue the case to go a head for high teason see 1351 act for high and low treason this is in the 1900 crimes act of NSW? this act has never been repealed as far as i know in NSW and hears what 1351 act looks like who dont know it.

17inc said:
Can a case go ahead under section 16 or not. And i think of the three people that have just been sent down for for terrorist just this
week why they where not charged under section 16 of the NSW 1900 crimes act that's all .

Jedidiah Stott said:
Yes. You cited it. Crimes Act 1900. Which expressly preserves the Statute of Treasons (as amended, etc)

So, that Statute is still a part of the corpus of Australian Law. Until repealed.

And if someone WERE validly charged under it (though that is unlikely, for the reasons given) then the case cannot simply be "thrown out". The law is
the law. Fiat justicia, ruat coelum and so on. The defence cannot say "Yes,, my client is guilty. But the law is too old, the case must be thrown out". Nor, indeed is the Act an old one . The Australian drafters saw fit to preserve it in 1900. That is only 110 years ago. There are much older Acts still in force.

Jedidiah Stott said:
And, apparently, Australia (though surely a charge of treason would be a federal offence?).

Sections 11, 12 and 16 of this Act, the ones dealing with treason and sedition, are based on things like an act of the British Parliament from 1848. Yet the Australia Act(s) of 1986 ended the ability of Australian governments and courts to automatically rely on these Westminster/law lords precedents made in bygone eras.

The easiest-to-understand constitutional problem I see regarding the 1900 Act's chapter on 'Offences Against The Sovereign' is that it's a law for the
defence of the monarch's prerogratives, and the states haven't had the right to legislate about the Crown of Australia in their own right, ignoring the
wishes of the feds, since the passage of the aforementioned 1986 Acts (at Canberra, in the states, and in the UK parliament).

But it's not entirely true that the NSW state crown prosecutors/DPP in the modern era couldn't charge anyone with this old law--theoretically they
could! All it would take would be for them to be nuts enough to take the view that the Australian Constitution has never been ratified to acknowledge
the legislation of Hawke, Thatcher et al. This obviously isn't going to happen, not unless a significant part of the NSW judiciary have been brainwashed by the League Of Rights. But if they were, then it would be up to the HCA to throw out the prosecutions, as there is no practical way for states' rights to trump what we now call federalism under these circumstances.

Why hasn't the NSW Crimes Act been ammended to remove sections 11, 12, 16? (So much for all those Labor lawyers running Macquarie street for all but six of the last twenty four years.) Well, there is a 1998 direction from the Chief Justice which includes intructions for all prosecutions brought under section 12 to be tried in the district court, not the supreme court. I think this is supposed to imply that section 12 is not to be taken seriously (presumably the same attitude applies with the other two sections that make up 'Offences Against The Sovereign'.)

If Hicks was in Australian hands, would he have been tried by a civil or military court?

He did end up being subject to a court order in Australia, in federal court IIRC.

Anyway, back to all this stuff about alleged terrorists being convicted under archaic laws--has nobody been paying attention to all the anti-terror
legislation introduced in recent years
? Or the fact that the proposal to try Hicks in Australia was predicated on him being tried under CofA
anti-mercenary laws from the nineteen seventies, not statutes designed to punish the likes of Guy Fawkes?
 
Top