LORD HAW HAW [ WILLIAM JOYCE ] QUESTIONS OVER HIM BEING FOUND GUILTY OF TREASON ?

The section just presented by Michelle contains this portion:

The key issue in trial was Joyce's nationality and whether he owed allegiance to Britain. Initially charged with three counts of treason, he pleaded not guilty all three (footnote 6 ). The defense easily proved that Joyce was not guilty on the first two counts of treason. These were dismissed because documents proving that Joyce was a citizen of the United States of America were obtained. However, Joyce obtained a British passport by stating on his application that he was a British subject by birth. Joyce renewed this passport twice before leaving for Germany.

Therefore on the third count prosecution argued:

whether or not the statement [of citizenship]...was true so long as that British passport continued to be valid and it was held by him , it placed him in exactly same position under protection of crown would any other subject holding a properly obtained.”

See:

Lord Haw-Haw: the myth and reality

Just or unjust, I see the rationale used in his conviction.

 

And that Clint is the contestable part...Having a passport, obtained under false pretences does not make you a British subject...Otherwise our foreign office should not have called Isreali ambassador in last week to explain himself and his nation of the killing of Hamas leader with British passport holders...Then again, if they are caught, we now by that little gem demand Isreal if they are indeed isrealis, hand over the team to us to try as British passport holders for any crime committed...

Its extremely contestable. And the British law today would throw the case out and send him off to Nuremburg to answer any other crimes others may have had against him. Certainly any lawyer today worth his salt would have the charges thrown out in UK.

 

I don't believe you and I disagree in this really. What I was trying to point out was that the "mind-set" of the time-period made that "British Passport" business the best (perhaps only) way they could bring him to trial and convict him of treason.

In today's world he probably would have "walked" or gotten a very short sentence. At the time however, his very existence was (I believe) an "insult to the British", and many of those in Britain had vocally espoused his execution before he was even captured.

Even the article I linked to explains that in the final paragraphs, his one surviving charge was "suspect" even then. But, given the mood of the UK then, his being freed was a non-starter. The fact that his father had claimed that he and his family were NOT American, but British probably didn't help either.

 

Agreed Clint. And I think the original poster has a point. My own view if I had been around in Britain at the time would have been of little sympathy for him. Its only now that I realise ok he got just desserts but for dubious reasoning.