The Power of Proceedings and the Justiciability of Absolutism: The Trial of Charles I Revisited

Abstract

Trials against heads of state typically attract large-scale public attention and spur debates on their legality and legitimacy. A case in point is the trial of Charles I, King of England, remarkable for the accused being a head of state in office. While some scholars argue that the trial was illegal because of the lacking legal authority of the High Court of Justice, others suggest that the trial was an example of rightful justice due to its outstanding fairness. Speaking to this controversial debate, this paper provides a novel perspective by discussing the legality of the trial under three essential considerations: the establishment of the High Court of Justice, the court proceedings, and the sentence of Charles I. Specifically, this paper argues on the basis of the historic sources concerning the trial’s legality, that the establishment of the High Court of Justice was especially problematic due to the intervention of the New Model Army and the legislative procedure. The paper also discusses the related paradox that a trial against a head of state typically requires illegitimate actions to overcome a legal status quo inhibiting the orderly conduct of a trial against a head of state. As such, this paper makes two important contributions to the literature on trials against heads of state and the discussion surrounding the trial of Charles I. First, it provides a detailed analysis of the historic arguments concerning the legality of Charles’ I trial. Second, it highlights that the key problems with respect to the legality of Charles’ I trial were the unlawful and disproportionate measures taken to establish the High Court of Justice.