You're welcome as always.
To an extent that's on the outer envelope of my competence, however, with a Monarch as Head of State you could believe the gummint can be so charged, certainly individual ministers of recognised departments, like a ship's captain, could be accused.

I see the sedition here, in this Canadian issue, against the department head that is pursuing the policy as an intent, insofar that it sets up and encourages one faction to rebel or usurp the normal authority of the historical and accepted order.

Treason applies to the same ministerial post as it is a partial or full act of overthrowing or betraying the country, as embraced by its people.

Of course the gummint just moves the goal-posts when you box them into a corner. You have to follow the golden rule, the people with the gold make the rules.

To cite a similar case; although it was a leading question, one faction here managed to table a parliamentary question which was answered by the Speaker at the time being Betty Boothroyd in this case and so it is recorded in Hansard (the daily,verbatim, journal of the proceedings of the House of Commons). Simply put she confirmed that Magna Carta (1215) is a valid law on our statute books and as such is a Bill of Rights.

One aspect of this prohibits and quotes as treasonable any action by govt to forcibly remove any property or posessions that an individual may own. Since the Home Sec had just forced the removal of the legally held and correctly certified hand-guns, there was a case brought against him for treason citing the requirements of Magna Carta.

This they neatly side-stepped by casting off this 1215 legislation and Bill of Rights by claiming it was so old as to be inapplicable, forgetting for a moment that the specific subject matter may well be an emotive one, the official response is absolute Bollocks.

(Capital B and two L's.)

As you might imagine though, when the boot is on the other foot its a different matter altogether.

However, its not the end of it. Whilst most aggrieved hobby pistol shooters could never pursue the full force of the law, there are a number of aggrieved and very senior legal people, including Peers of the Realm, who are working privately at the case using their extensive knowledge and usually wholly unaffordable time.

We shall see.

Personally, I'm not fussed by the specifics of the case, however, I am concerned with dual standards and govt dismissal of the statute book, plus the punishment of the innocent here for the dereliction of duty by officialdom who failed to carry out the legal procedural controls, or instigate discreet investigation to confirm the cogent intelligence received, over a three year period.

No police internal investigation of the top-level officer could be made as he retired one day after the event that propogated this trouble. You can't have an internal investigation when the person is no longer "internal".

As circumstantial evidence, in an obvious official effort to circumvent difficult questioning, the whole scenario has been placed under a media gagging order (our D notice) and the official investigations made into a state secret and placed under the 100yr rule.

Therefore and with some parallel aspects, I see this as case of un-democratic and dictatorial high-handedness.

In your specific Canadian case at present I'm thinking, God save Canada.

It seems at present nobody else can, or will be allowed to.

and again; 00:46, I must go and do my horizontal noisy dead man act.

R.