The defendant was an American citizen but held a British passport. After the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany in 1939, he delivered from German territory broadcast talks in English hostile to Great Britain.
Held: His conviction for treason was confirmed.
Lord Jowitt LC referred to ‘the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance’ between a citizen and the state, saying: ‘The contention is a different one: it is that by the holding of a passport he asserts and maintains the relation in which he formally stood, claiming a continued protection of the Crown and thereby pledging the continuance of his fidelity. In these circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that so long as he holds the passport he is within the meaning of the statute a man who, if he is adherent to the King’s enemies in the realm or elsewhere commits an act of treason . . Moreover the special value to the enemy of the appellant’s services as a broadcaster was that he could be represented as speaking as a British subject and his German workbook showed that it was in this character that he was employed, for which his passport was doubtless accepted as the voucher’.
Lord Jowitt LC
[1946] AC 347, [1946] 1 All ER 186
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rusbridger and Another v Attorney General CA 20-Mar-2002
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Arrowsmith 1975
The defendant was charged with endeavouring to seduce a member of Her Majesty’s forces from his duty or allegiance to Her Majesty.
Held: A soldier owes allegiance to the Crown, whether he has taken the oath of allegiance or not. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hicks CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant was held as a suspected terrorist by the US government in Guantanamo Bay. He had Australian citizenship but qualified also for British citizenship. He had sought that citizenship and protection. The secretary of state appealed an order . .
Cited – Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General ChD 7-May-1982
The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Leading Case
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.198163