4 ms·

> The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in

by srmarm 4y ago

> The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert. I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. For example as a British citizen you can be prosecuted in the UK for abusing a minor in any country - the jurisdiction is over you as a British citizen. However this isn't the case with isn't a feature of the The Firearm Act of 1937 which I guess only applies on British land and ships. I take that to mean that the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law.

knorker 4y ago
> I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. I'm just pointing out that because parliament cannot be bound this means that anything and everything can become law. So pointing out that it could become law by act of parliament to apply to British subjects anywhere doesn't mean much, because anything could be, British subjects involved or not. This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. For the question of "is it British land" this is just "well, what is a country?", and comes down to "is it recognized as such by other nations?". But nobody cares, so this will probably never be settled, and more likely end is that it falls apart by natural forces before it's settled in law. It's just not worth bothering parliament with this. Unless the "sovereign" state of Sealand decides to lease out some of its land to the Russian military. Very quickly this will be settled, in the UK's favour. Settled legally? Well… by whose law? > the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law. Right. As written it seems that the law did not apply.
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  > Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. Actually the full judgement[0] is a bit clearer that that's exactly what how it's intended, but not in a jingoistic nationalist way. One argument in this case was that there ARE crimes which are justiciable in the UK which are not committed within the UK or its territorial water, (treason, murder, bigamy, and offences committed on British-flagged ships on the High Seas, I think child molestation was mentioned by OP, but not in this court case—I'm not sure about this one, although it wouldn't surprise me if it's on the list). So it is both possible and precedented for parliament to pass laws which, when broken, would fall under the jurisdiction of British courts even if the offence itself did not take place in the UK. But this isn't one of those cases. > This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. The UK also has a constitution, it's just not consolidated in a single document. Parliament is bound by a variety of restrictions on what they can and can't do in terms of passing laws. However, it is, of course, possible to change these restrictions, or pass the law despite them, similarly to how it is possible to amend the US constitution, and pass a law which is later found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I believe similarly to the US, any law can be passed, and if its constitutionality is challenged, then there is a Supreme Court who will pass a judgement, and so apart from the simplicity of having a consolidated and codified US constitution, there's no major difference between the two countries in that respect—any law found to be unconstitutional will be considered void. Agree completely though that basically no-one cares enough to try to sort this out. I'm not even sure what mechanism there would be for doing so? To actively police Sealand until a crime occurs, so that the perpetrator could be arrested and brought for trial to see if the judge would consider Sealand under their jurisdiction this time? [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanhastings.com/havenco/sealand/judgement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanha...

by srmarm 4y ago

knorker 4y ago

> I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. I'm just pointing out that because parliament cannot be bound this means that anything and everything can become law. So pointing out that it could become law by act of parliament to apply to British subjects anywhere doesn't mean much, because anything could be, British subjects involved or not. This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. For the question of "is it British land" this is just "well, what is a country?", and comes down to "is it recognized as such by other nations?". But nobody cares, so this will probably never be settled, and more likely end is that it falls apart by natural forces before it's settled in law. It's just not worth bothering parliament with this. Unless the "sovereign" state of Sealand decides to lease out some of its land to the Russian military. Very quickly this will be settled, in the UK's favour. Settled legally? Well… by whose law? > the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law. Right. As written it seems that the law did not apply.

d1sxeyes 4y ago
> Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. Actually the full judgement[0] is a bit clearer that that's exactly what how it's intended, but not in a jingoistic nationalist way. One argument in this case was that there ARE crimes which are justiciable in the UK which are not committed within the UK or its territorial water, (treason, murder, bigamy, and offences committed on British-flagged ships on the High Seas, I think child molestation was mentioned by OP, but not in this court case—I'm not sure about this one, although it wouldn't surprise me if it's on the list). So it is both possible and precedented for parliament to pass laws which, when broken, would fall under the jurisdiction of British courts even if the offence itself did not take place in the UK. But this isn't one of those cases. > This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. The UK also has a constitution, it's just not consolidated in a single document. Parliament is bound by a variety of restrictions on what they can and can't do in terms of passing laws. However, it is, of course, possible to change these restrictions, or pass the law despite them, similarly to how it is possible to amend the US constitution, and pass a law which is later found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I believe similarly to the US, any law can be passed, and if its constitutionality is challenged, then there is a Supreme Court who will pass a judgement, and so apart from the simplicity of having a consolidated and codified US constitution, there's no major difference between the two countries in that respect—any law found to be unconstitutional will be considered void. Agree completely though that basically no-one cares enough to try to sort this out. I'm not even sure what mechanism there would be for doing so? To actively police Sealand until a crime occurs, so that the perpetrator could be arrested and brought for trial to see if the judge would consider Sealand under their jurisdiction this time? [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanhastings.com/havenco/sealand/judgement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanha...