Assassination, Treason and a Pikestaff

This video traces some of the history of 'treason' in Australia, starting with the response to the failed assassination attempt upon Prince Alfred in 1868. It discusses the treason felony law enacted in New South Wales, which had such unusual and excessive provisions concerning disloyalty to Queen Victoria that the British Government requested that it be amended, or risk disallowance. The NSW Government, unusually, insisted on the laws and the British backed off.

The video then discusses the current treason laws in Australia, and a UK court decision where it was declared that it was as 'plain as a pike staff' that treason laws did not extend to republicanism by lawful, non-violent means.

It concludes with a discussion of the disqualification of MPs if they are attainted of treason, and the remarkable tale of an Australian man, Arthur Lynch, who was convicted in the UK of high treason and sentenced to death, but was later to serve for nine years as a Member of the House of Commons.

[stepdragdwnunda]

That was very informative, thank you for this. Your efforts are appreciated.

[landcruiser]

Thanks for all your videos. I stumbled across one and became hooked.

[Shalott]

Thank you for this video, Anne; as usual it is fascinating and very well presented. I was highly amused by the situation where the NSW government passed legislation that was so extremely pro-British that it embarrassed the British authorities (perhaps less likely to happen today?), and also the one where the voters of Galway were not at all put off by their favoured candidate's record of treasonable activity against Britain. It's not very often that one sees a video with the word 'pikestaff' in the title! BTW As a result of discovering and watching your videos, and also because elections and constitutional reform are very topical here in the UK just at the moment, I've been looking at videos of state openings of parliament, and guides to parliament buildings etc., in various contries (Canada, Australia, NZ, and Ireland) and it's been really interesting to see the differences (and similarities) among all those institutions.

[user]

Another insightful video.

Could I please suggest uploading the audio of these videos as podcasts?

[douglasfield]

Another excellent exposition.If she was English she would be described there as a “National Treasure”
Is there an Aussie equivalent?

[johnlonie]

I did find it all quite fascinating, even amusing at times. Thankyou. Does the commonwealth treason legislation take precedence over the state?

[johnfitzpatrick]

G, day Messrs

Any of your explanations of Acts still In Force?
What was the treason matter with the former Prime Minister Hon J Gillard (Labor)?
🌏🇦🇺

[matthewheath]

I really appreciate your videos, Anne. For people unable to attend University, its a great resource

[mitch_mishyy]

I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind the usage of 'attainted' for treason as opposed to 'convicted' like the rest of the offences? Great video as always.

[peterhelm]

Thank you. Very useful information for those who are not students of constitutional law.

[nicegan]

The topic of Britain overruling colonial legislation made me think of the saga of Justice Boothby of the South Australian Supreme Court and the Colonial Laws Validity Act.

Might be a good future video for you!

[virginiacharlotte]

Hi Professor Twomey, I am wondering if you might, in due course, comment on the case of Tickle v. Giggle, should Giggle end up making a Constitutional challenge re. the sex discrimination act of 1984 and the 2013 gender identity amendments. Thank you. VC

[setonixI]

Does Youtube just outright delete comments, or do they offer you a chance to review potentially problamatic (to youtube's system) words in comments? Because I made one just now, and when viewed in incognito it doesn't appear and only appear on my end.

[billmago]

Thank you Professor, i enjoy your channel

[tonyandjackieholmes]

Non-Lawyer - but really enjoy these posting - Really interesting content. Thank you

[SauronsEye]

2:44 Indignation meetings. Isn't that, Ladies of breeding. On the lawn, sipping cups of tea, with their pinky fingers in the air. Tsk, tsking and raising their eye brows a lot?

[thelastaustralian]

A List of all the Australian Constitutional Laws That have been broken, with the intent for Foreign Profiteering, .Would be Interesting to see Professor !

[petergale]

Would the NSW Act have been applied when a shot was fired toward Prince Charles at Darling Harbour ?

[auspseudolaw]

Wolter Joosse, who ran the very first case in the High Court regarding the "Queen of Australia" premise challenging the validity of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 in Joosse v ASIC [1998] HCA 77 just commented on one my Facebook posts claiming that Australian Citizenship is constitutionally invalid as there is no source of power, citing John Quick at the 1890's Conventions. I thought I'd share my response I wrote it in 15 minutes, going to add a few more references and publish a new article on the website. Perhaps this would make a new subject for your excellent video presentations Anne.

There was no such thing as a "citizen" at Federation, we were all British Subjects throughout the empire. In Ah Sheung [1906] HCA 44, Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ observed: "We are not disposed to give any countenance to the novel doctrine that there is an Australian nationality as distinguished from a British nationality".

Things changed after the Statute of Westminster 1930. As stated in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 226): "The post-war legislation in both countries, the 1948 UK Act and the Citizenship Act (Cth), recognised that the metaphysical indivisibility of the Imperial Crown no longer made constitutional or political sense. Notions of allegiance as the factum upon which nationality laws and status turned were accommodated to international realities consequent upon the disappearance of the British Empire. .. There remained nothing in notions of allegiance to the Crown in the one Imperial politic capacity."

Whatever was said at the Conventions is irrelevant, when section 76(i) of the Constitution gives the High Court the power to interpret it according to changing times. As Windeyer J noted in Ex parte Professional Engineers’ Association [1959] HCA 47 (at 267): “Law is to be accommodated to changing facts." As stated in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 111): "This method of interpretation is equally applicable to the term "aliens" in s 51(xix) of the Constitution. Indeed, it was applied to that term in Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1988] HCA 45. Six Justices of this Court held that, although at the time of federation the term would not have included British subjects, it now included British subjects who were not citizens of Australia..." (See also Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72).

See also Singh v The Commonwealth [2004] HCA 43 (at 57): "The essence of the term "alien" was the lack of permanent allegiance to the Crown. While the Crown remained indivisible, a British subject was outside the denotation of the term "alien". However, when the Crown divided, so to speak, the denotation of the term "subject of the Queen" changed. As a result, British subjects no longer owed permanent allegiance to the Queen of Australia and became "aliens" in Australia." (at 131): "This change in the application of the term is the result of a number of significant developments since federation. They include: (a) the gradual emergence of Australia as an independent, sovereign nation (which arguably culminated with the passage of the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth) and (UK)); (b) the acceptance of the divisibility of the Crown (implicit in the development of the Commonwealth as an association of independent nations); (c) the creation of a distinct Australian citizenship commencing in 1948 with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act and the British Nationality Act 1948 (UK); and (d) the acceptance by this Court that the phrase "subject of the Queen" in the Constitution no longer means "subject of the Queen of the United Kingdom" but "subject of the Queen of Australia"."

As you can see, the High Court has long upheld Australian Citizenship, and the use of the "Aliens" power in section 51 as the constitutional source of power for it. (See more recently, Chetcuti v The Commonwealth [2021] HCA 25, and Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3).

[karenm]

Thank you again for a very interesting talk. Stay warm. :)