Kings' Legal Immunity: A Historical Perspective

The concept of sovereign immunity has existed in various forms throughout history, and it continues to be a topic of debate today. In the context of whether kings can break the law, the idea of sovereign immunity comes into play. This legal doctrine states that a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil or criminal prosecution. While this concept has evolved over time, it has raised questions about the accountability of monarchs and their potential immunity from prosecution for any wrongdoing.

The UK's monarch has sovereign immunity and cannot be prosecuted

Sovereign immunity is not unique to the UK, with several countries having laws or conventions that immunise the head of state from legal action. For example, the President of Singapore has sovereign immunity, subject to clause 22K(4). The President of Finland has immunity from prosecution according to Article 113 of the Constitution, which applies to their official activities. The Spanish monarch is also personally immune from prosecution for acts committed by government ministers in the King's name.

There are two forms of sovereign immunity: immunity from suit and immunity from enforcement. Immunity from suit means that the sovereign or head of state cannot be a defendant or subject of court proceedings. Immunity from enforcement means that even if a person succeeds in any way against their sovereign or state, they may still be without means of enforcement.

In the UK, the monarch is immune from arrest in all cases, and members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings. No arrest can be made in the monarch's presence or within the 'verges' of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence, judicial processes cannot be executed within it. The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, and distress cannot be levied on land in their possession.

While the monarch has sovereign immunity, there are ways to remove them from their position if they break the law. This would likely cause a constitutional crisis and would probably be illegal. However, the flexible nature of the UK's constitution means that a way could be found to remove them from their position.

The monarch is also not required to have a driver's license

The concept of sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine that protects a sovereign or state from legal wrongdoings and civil or criminal prosecution. This means that the monarch is above the law and cannot be prosecuted for any crimes they may commit.

In the United Kingdom, all prosecutions are made in the name of the Crown, and all courts sit in the name of the Crown. This means that the Crown cannot prosecute itself, and the monarch is effectively exempt from prosecution.

An example of the monarch's immunity from prosecution can be seen in the case of driving laws. In the UK, driver's licenses are issued in the name of the monarch, and the monarch is the only person in the country who is legally allowed to drive without a license. This privilege is extended to the monarch because they are the licensing authority, and as such, do not need a license themselves.

While the monarch is not required to have a driver's license, it is likely that they still possess one, as they may have obtained it before ascending the throne. For example, Queen Elizabeth II, the previous monarch, was a trained army mechanic during the war and likely had a license, even though she was not legally required to have one.

The monarch's immunity from prosecution is a long-standing tradition in the UK, and it remains to be seen if there will be any changes to this doctrine in the future.

The Queen has automatic legal custody of all her descendants and minor grandchildren

The concept of sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine that protects a sovereign or state from legal wrongdoings and affords them immunity from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This doctrine is based on the classical concept of sovereignty, which holds that a sovereign cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another without their approval. While this rule is commonly expressed by the legal maxim "rex non potest peccare", meaning "the king can do no wrong", it is important to note that sovereign immunity has two forms: immunity from suit and immunity from enforcement.

In the context of the British monarchy, the idea of sovereign immunity has been interpreted to mean that the monarch is above prosecution and cannot be sued or prosecuted for criminal or civil cases. This interpretation stems from the understanding that all prosecutions in the UK are made in the name of the crown, and therefore, the crown cannot prosecute itself.

However, it is worth noting that the monarch's immunity from prosecution does not extend to their descendants or minor grandchildren. While there is a centuries-old rule stemming from a disagreement between King George I and his son, which granted the king authority over his grandchildren, this rule is not legally binding on Queen Elizabeth's authority over her great-grandchildren. This rule, established in 1717 and known as "The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family", gave the king the final say over his grandchildren's education and marriages. However, it is considered a royal prerogative and not an Act of Parliament, and thus, has little legal bearing in the present monarchy.

In conclusion, while the Queen does not have automatic legal custody or authority over her descendants or minor grandchildren, the monarch's immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits remains a unique aspect of the British legal system, rooted in the concept of sovereign immunity.

The monarch does not have to take part in jury duty

In the United Kingdom, the monarch is the source of legal authority and is, therefore, immune from criminal prosecution. This legal doctrine is called sovereign immunity, or crown immunity. This means that the monarch does not have to take part in jury duty.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on the classical concept of sovereignty, which holds that a sovereign cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another without their approval. In constitutional monarchies, the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority that creates the courts. Thus, the courts have no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of their subjects.

While the monarch is immune from prosecution, this immunity does not extend to other members of the royal family. For example, in 2013, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom refused to hear a request from the former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Lise Thibault, who sought to have charges against her dropped on the grounds of royal immunity. The court ruled that constitutional law does not grant a lieutenant governor the same immunity as the monarch, and that royal immunity would only apply to actions involving official state functions, not personal ones.

In the United States, the situation is similar. The United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution guarantee the right to a trial by jury, but failure to attend may result in penalties. However, the monarch is exempt from jury duty as they are not a United States citizen.

The monarchy as a whole is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act

The monarchy is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) in the United Kingdom. The Royal Household is not considered a public authority under the FOI Acts, and therefore, it is exempt from the provisions of the legislation. This means that the monarchy is not subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as other public institutions.

The FOI Acts came into force on January 1, 2005, and allow any person of any nationality to request information from public authorities. While the Royal Household is exempt, it has stated that its policy is to provide information as freely as possible and to account openly for its use of public money. For example, details of public funding for the Head of State have been provided since 2001, and annual financial reports are posted online.

The exemption for the Royal Household under the FOI Acts is specifically related to information concerning communications with the Queen, other members of the Royal Family, or the Royal Household. This exemption is in place to protect the political neutrality of the monarchy and maintain the confidentiality of communications between the Queen and her Ministers and other public bodies.

While the monarchy is exempt from the FOI Acts, there are still some mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and accountability. For example, information held by public authorities relating to the activities and functions of the Royal Household may be subject to FOI requests. Additionally, the Royal Household has committed to providing information where appropriate and has provided postal addresses for various departments and individuals for enquiries.

In conclusion, while the monarchy as a whole is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act in the United Kingdom, there are still efforts made to provide information to the public and ensure a level of transparency and accountability. However, the specific exemption for the Royal Household under the FOI Acts highlights the unique position of the monarchy and the need to protect the confidentiality of certain communications.

Frequently asked questions