If on the other hand any other members of the Royal family committed an offence, they would not have the protection of the Queen's prosecutorial position, and could expect to be charged and dealt with like anyone else. That, of course, is one of the cornerstones of the rule of law: everyone is equal before the law, and neither wealth nor privilege offers any sort of defence. It is true that in sentencing someone the court would take into account their particular circumstances, as indeed would the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to bring charges in the first place. But there are limits. And the usual answer to someone who protests that a criminal prosecution would ruin his personal life is to point out that he should have thought of that before committing the crime.
All of the above is, or should be, fairly trite. The reason I mention it is because of this seemingly farcical story from New Zealand, where according to the New Zealand Herald:
This is absurd nonsense. Apart from anything else, I doubt Maoris would want a King who had committed such offences. People are killed every day around the world by drunk drivers, and terrorised by burglaries. It raises the question of how serious an offence Mr Paki would have to commit before it would be thought proportionate to convict him.
New Zealand usually prides it self on its adherence to the rule of law, and its generally eminent status in every survey of international standards of living, in contradistinction to what used to be called "tin pot dictatorships". This sort of story is straight from the worst annals of hapless dictatorships worldwide.