This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In what way was their challenge unsuccessful? Were they trying to get the whole Act thrown out? —Random832 (contribs) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, they asked the Attorney-General to promise not to prosecute them if they broke the law. He refused to promise anything (not because he actually would have prosecuted them, but because he is not supposed to make hypothetical decisions about whether to prosecute someone for a crime not yet committed). So they sued him and tried to get a declaration that his decision infringed their human rights and that the Act could not be used to prosecute anyone for peaceful debate. Richard75 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There was also an attempt to have the Act amended in 2001/02; see Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill, HC Hansard 19 Dec 2001 and 19 July 2002. I suspect it was prompted by the Guardian case, but I haven't looked at it in any detail.James500 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the Minister of State for the Home Office, Fiona MacTaggart, the last conviction for an offence under this Act was in 1994 and the sentence was a community supervision order (See House of Commons Hansard, 10 January 2006, written answers)James500 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)