Talk:Treason Felony Act 1848

Guardian

In what way was their challenge unsuccessful? Were they trying to get the whole Act thrown out? —Random832 (contribs) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they asked the Attorney-General to promise not to prosecute them if they broke the law. He refused to promise anything (not because he actually would have prosecuted them, but because he is not supposed to make hypothetical decisions about whether to prosecute someone for a crime not yet committed). So they sued him and tried to get a declaration that his decision infringed their human rights and that the Act could not be used to prosecute anyone for peaceful debate. Richard75 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was also an attempt to have the Act amended in 2001/02; see Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill, HC Hansard 19 Dec 2001 and 19 July 2002. I suspect it was prompted by the Guardian case, but I haven't looked at it in any detail.James500 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Last prosecution

According to the Minister of State for the Home Office, Fiona MacTaggart, the last conviction for an offence under this Act was in 1994 and the sentence was a community supervision order (See House of Commons Hansard, 10 January 2006, written answers[1])James500 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of abolition of penal transportation

See query on Talk: Penal transportation. James500 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

The reference to Queen Victoria actually means whoever is king or queen at the time of the offence: Interpretation Act 1978, section 10. Richard75 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Does "imagine" mean something different here than ordinarily?

Or is it literally a crime to imagine deposing the queen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E1:ABC:A001:A408:1487:F259:ADA1 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It has its normal meaning, but it still has to be demonstrated by an overt act. Richard75 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)