Is the Monarch above the law? Can they be prosecuted if they break the law?

[cakeorwine]

Thinking about what the Supreme Court has said about the US Presidency and how they can be immune from prosecution for certain acts if they are carried out in an official capacity.

Can our Monarch be prosecuted?

No they can’t. All prosecutions in the U.K. are made in the name of the crown - hence Crown Prosecution Service. All courts also sit in the name of the crown. The crown can’t prosecute itself. So yes the monarch is above prosecution.

Not when acting in his position as King (wonder if that was brought in after a previous King Charles lost his head!)

I found this article interesting about some of the exemptions

https://time.com/6275480/king-charles-iii-privileges-laws-exempt/

So what if he decides to murder someone?

Then what happens?

They get murdered.

The king is the law but he is also bound by the law so yes, he absolutely can be prosecuted.

No - he has sovereign immunity and can’t be prosecuted.

So can potentially I could get the king to do a hit on some-one and get away with it. Hmmm...
🤔

A simple google search shows the monarch is immune from prosecution.

If the king committed a murder (that couldn't be covered up!) parliament would remove him from office as monarch, William would become king, at which point the ex king could be prosecuted, as he would no longer hold the office of monarch.

How would Parliament prosecute him @Elleherd ? Under which Act?

Can Parliament do that?

Sovereign immunity covers him as king but the English monarchy has a duality inherent in it. So as a man he is ultimately bound by the law. He's not an absolute monarch. Of course the king committing crime would create a constitutional crisis and he would have to answer to parliament but it could be done. He can do stuff like break the speed limit with impunity but if he knifed Camilla then he'd be removed as king and prosecuted.

Except he could dissolve parliament before that happened…

And what is the mechanism Parliament would use to remove the King?

Realistically you probably have a constitutional crisis. There have been a few times in British history when people decided that the monarch had gone too far and needed to be got rid of. Sometimes this is peaceful (James II, Edward VIII) and sometimes it is extremely violent (Charles I). If our current king decided to murder someone and it was discovered, I’m sure a way would be found to remove him from his position. It probably wouldn’t be legal. But the British constitution is extremely flexible and in awkward situations like that a way can normally be found.

Exactly. Monarchs like Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI, as well as Charles I, overstepped the mark and arguably acted illegally. They were all removed.

Correct,

We have an unwritten flexible constitution which is based on based on a combination of statutes, judicial decisions, and accepted conventions. A flexible constitution can be amended by simple legislative process.

These days the most likely would be lent on heavily to abdicate and leg it off into exile somewhere where it would cause more trouble than it was worth to be returned from.

A legislative process requiring Royal Assent?

Or send those in Parliament to the Tower to be beheaded, just like a few centuries ago.

I'm sure this question has been done before on mn, but here's a reminder about his royal specialness:

He can do wtf he wants:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/11/courtier-demanded-assurance-king-could-not-be-prosecuted-under-new-welsh-law

And if he did commit a crime, the wigged wonders will make it up as they go along. Royal immunity last tested in 1911 for George V and bigamy, according to this:

www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/what-would-happen-if-the-king-went-on-a-crime-spree/

I'm sure Harry once shot a rare bird of prey that other people would have served time for, but obviously he ... didn't.

Yup. The same Royal Assent as when Parliament decided to behead Charles I, or depose James II. Royal Assent is completely legally necessary…except when everyone agrees that it isn’t. That’s the glory of the British system.

I fucking love mumsnet for threads like this!!

Can’t be prosecuted but can be beheaded. Probably why so few kingly murders! Charles is watching his step

The beauty of a flexible constitution is while it would be beyond unusual it is possible in such extreme circumstances for it to pass without royal assent.

The reality is if something that serious happened too publicly to cover up, I'm pretty sure something else would happen that meant we never faced a constitutional crisis. Declared to unwell by reason of insanity and dethroned more genteelly at the least.

Or just get someone to send him off with a speedball, like they did with George V