Law Report, Feb. 1 Before the LORD CHANCELLOR. LORD MACMILLAN, LORD WRIGHT, LORD PORTER, attd LORD SIMONDS Tle HousE delivered their reasons for dis- missing the appeal (Lord Porter dissenting) of William Joyce from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing his appeal against his conviction at the Central Criminal CourL before Mr. Justice Tucker on September 19, 1945, on the third count of an indictment charging him with high treason. The third count charged that Joyce, while a person owing allegiance to the Crown, was guilty of high treason by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere than in the King's realm between September 18, 1939, and July 2, 1940, contrary to the Treas6n Act, 1351. Mr. G. 0. Slade, K.C., Mr. Derek CurtisI Bennett, K.C., and Mr. J. Burge appeared for the appellant; the Attorney-General (Sir! lHartley Shawcross, K.C.) and Mr. Gerald Howard for the Crown. JUDGMENT The LORD CHANCELLOR. in delivering his opinion, said that the question of law, of far- reaching importance, was whether an alien who had been resident within the realm could be held guilty and convicted in this country of high treason for acts committed by hirn outside the realm. The statute of 1351 was wide enough to cover any man anywhere: " if a man do levy war," &c. But it was necessary to prove not only that an act was done, but that it was a treasonable act. That depended -on the relation in which the actor stood to the King to whose enemies he adhered. Attenition had naturally been concentrated on the question of allegiance. It was said that an act whi,ch was treasonable if the actor owed allegiance was not treasonable if he did not; but that left undecided the question by whom allegiance was owed. New considerations might demand a reconsideration of the scope of the principle. It was not an extension of a penal law to apply its principle to circumstances unfore- seen at the time of its enactment, so long as the case was fairly brought within its language. It was implicit in the argument for the appellant that, however brief his absence from the realm, he could not, during that absence, in any circumstances by giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies outside the realm be guilty of a treasonable act. In his (his Lordship's opinion) that statement was not only at variance with the law, but was inconsistent with authority which could not be disregarded. In Foster's Crown Law (3rd ed.. p. 183), it was stated:- Local allegiancc was founded in the protection a foreigunr enjoyeth for his person his family or effects during his residcncc herc and it ceaseth, whencver hc withdraweth wh his faily and effcs. .. . But if SUCh alien, secking the orotecion of Ihe Crown and having a family and eAffcts herc should during a war with his native coumtry go (hither and tere adherc to thC King's cnomies for parpoose of hostilitY, he might bc dealt with as a traitor; for he came and sctled herc nder the Protection of the Crown: and, though his person was removed for a tmc, his cffccts and family continued stilt under the same protection. This rule was laid town by all the Judges assembled at the Qucen's Command. Jan. 12, 1707. That statement had been repeatcd-without clallenge by numerous authors of the highest authority, nor in any judicial utterances had the statement been challenged. In the present case no question arose of a vicarious protection, for there was no evidence that the appellant left a family or effects behind him. But was there not such protec- tion sttill afforded him by the Sovereign as to require his continued allegiance'? It would be strangely inconsistent with the robust and vigorous common sense of the common law to snppose that an alien quitting his residence in this country, and adhering and giving aid to the King's enemies abroad, could do so with imPunity. The appellant had long resided herc but hc (his Lordship) made no assumption one wvay or another about the appellant's intention to return, and did not attach any importance to the fact that the original passport applica- tion, and therefore, presumably. the renewals also, werc for " holiday touring." Being lopg resident here, and owing allegiance, he ob- tained a passport. It did not matter that he made false representations as to his status- as to being a British subject, a statement which he was afterwards at pains to disprove. When he first made the statement it might be that he thought it was true. The possession of a passport by a non- British subject gave him rights and imposed on the Sovereign obligations which wotild otherwise not be given or imposed. He was cnabled to obtain in a foreign country the protection extended to British subjects. The question was whether by the receipt of the passport he extended his dtity of allegiance beyond the moment when he left the shores of this country. As one owing allegiance he souglht and obtained the protection of the King for himself while abroad. It was argued that, since the protection of the law could not be given outside the realm to an alicn, he could not outside the realm owe any duty. That point had no substance. At the time when the common law established between Sovereign and resident alien the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance it was to the personal power of the Sovereign rather than to the law of England that the alien looked. It was not, thlerefore, an answer to the Sovereign's claim to fidelity from an alien without the realm who held a British passport that there could not be extended to him the protection of the law. He (his Lordship) was of opinion that so long as an alien held the passport he was, within the meaning of the statute, a man who, if he adhered to the King's enemies in the realm or elsewhere, committed an act of treason. He (his Lordship) did not dissent from the general proposition tbat an alien could wvith- draw his allegiance oi0 leaving the realm. But there was no suggcstion that the appellant had surrendered his passport, or taken any other overt act to withdraw from his allegiance, unless indeed reiiance was placed on thc act of treason itself, which in his (his Lordship's) opinion could not be done. Such an act was not inconsistent with his still availing Isimself of the passport in other countries than Ger- many, and even in Germany itself. With regard to the question of jurisdiction, a proper regard of the State for its own security required that all who committed the crime of treason. whether within or without the rcalm, should be amenable to its laws. There was no principle of cemity to the conlrary. It was further urged for the appellant that therc was no evidence that tihe renewal of his passport afforded him or was capable of afford- ing him any protection, or that he ever availed himself or had any intention of availing him- self of any such protection; that if there was any such evidence the issue was one for the jury; and that the Judge had failed to direct them thereon. His LORDS}iIP examined'that point and held that it also failed. LORD MACMILLAN, LORD WRIGmiT, and LORD SINIONDS concurred: LORD PORTER, in a dissenting opinion, said' thal he agreed that the renewal of the appel- Jani's passport. obtained on August 24, 1939 was evidence from which a itiry might have inferred that hc retained that document for use on or after September IS, 1939, when hie was tirst proved to have adhered to the enemy. if an alien was tinder British protection he occupied the same position when abroad as he would occupy if he were a British subject. But the question of continued allegiance de- pended on the circumstances of the case, and was a matter for the jury. In the present case a jury. properly directed, miglht well have considered that the allegiance had been ermina:ed. 'rhe ruling below, as he saw it, could only mean that the appellant's duty of allegiance remained in force until July 2, 1940, unIess it was shown thaL an end had been put to it. It ptiL the onus on him. The passport, which ,was never found again, might have been used ,only to gain admittance to Germany, and might have then been discarded. There was no evidence that he kept it for use on or after September lS, 1939. His LORDSHIP discussed the matter in detail; and said that:- against the mere receipt of the passport there had To , S:t tlc tact tat 1its po,session was at ieast dcsirable if not necessary to enab!c the. apyclani to pgocecd to Germany from this.ountry: the fact that it uas not found in his possession again or anythin5 furtler knawn of it: his statemcn of his intention of becoming naturalitCd in Gcrinank and his accecptanc ,,f a post from the Gcrrnan S,atc. Those were matters for a Jury propcily directed to consider. They vere not dircticd on them arid wcre to!d thai the matter was onc of law and not fer thcm. He would have allowed the appeal! Law Report, -Feb. 1 HOUSE OF LORDS WILLIAM JOYCE'S APPEAL: REASONS I FOR DISMISSAL JOYCE v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS