Was Roger Casement hanged for the want of a comma?

Question

Roger Casement was convicted after the Easter Rising of 1916 and sentenced to death under the Treason Act of 1351.

As far as the anecdotes go, the conviction hinged in part on the presence or lack thereof of a comma in the statement that someone commits treason when someone does adhere to the King’s enemies, and the court interpreted the law that this was by doing so "in the realm or elsewhere". But the Treason Act of 1351 was punctuated Norman-French, and allegedly the court did alter the meaning of the text by their interpretation, as the "in the realm or elsewhere" could point to the enemies of the king, or the location of the act, and inserting a comma between realm and or would alter the or into an and and the only difference would be a simple comma.

The 1991 version renders this article as:

if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere,

so with a comma before elsewhere. The French text which is reproduced under it reads a little different:

si hōme leve de guerre contre nr̃e dit Seign^r le Roi en son Roialme, ou soit aherdant as enemys nr̃e Seign^r le Roi en le Roialme, donant a eux eid ou confort en son Roialme ou ꝑ aillours

which roughly translates to

if a man levy war against our aforementioned Lord the King or be adherent to the enemies of our Lord the King in the Realm, giving them aid or comfort in his Realm or elsewhere

See, the comma is not present in the French... So was Mr Casement really hanged for the want of a comma?

Answer 1

No

I have looked through the judgment and the question of punctuation was not central. Rather, he was convicted because the court construed the Treason Act 1351 — consistent with a long line of authority and practice — to cover adherence to enemies abroad, even when the acts of adherence occurred outside the realm.

The issue was briefly considered (and promptly dismissed) by Lord Chief Justice Reading who said (my emphasis added in bold):

“We must construe these words of this statute, now some 560 years old, without reference to commas or brackets, but merely looking to the language. The history of the law of treason in this country is certainly of importance in considering the statute of 1351. It is unnecessary at this time ... to refer in great detail to the early law. But I have no hesitation myself in stating that if a man adhere to the King's enemies without the realm he is committing the offence of treason; and that he is committing the offence of treason at common law, notwithstanding that the offence is committed without the realm."

(see the link here for the full judgement)

To clarify any possible confusion, it is important to note that this does not contradict the articles* on this issue. They are correct that the defence raised this argument (hence its consideration in the judgment). However, the point of the quote is to show that this point was given no weight by the judges. Indeed, the others didn't reference it in the justification for their decision at all. The reasons that I gave at the beginning of my answer are those that the judges used to support their verdict.

In summary, it did not matter whether or not there was (or should have been) a comma. The Court looked to precedent to support its judgment rather than the precise way the 560-year-old statute was written.

---

^{_{*all of the non-legal articles (including the Wikipedia page) that I've come across fail to mention the actual reasons for the verdict of the court. Although what they do state is not wrong, to me, this is a somewhat misleading omission. The effect of this is an implication that there was some validity to the defense's argument when the courts made their judgement on completely unrelated grounds}}