CONFIDENTIAL
4.
If these methods fail, and if it is possible to open fire without endangering innocent parties, an explicit warning should be given to the offending vessel that if it does not stop, fire will be opened. If fire is opened, only warning shots may be fired, ie ahead or astern or over the vessel. Firing on an unarmed vessel so as to create danger to human life onboard without proved necessity is a breach of international law. In the type of case under discussion, it would be extremely difficult to satisfy an international tribunal that there was proved necessity for firing at the vessel.
For practical purposes, therefore, firing at the vessel must be prohibited. Should the warning shorts have failed to induce the offending vessel to stop, it must be decided in the light of the circumstances, whether there is any point in continuing the pursuit, bearing in mind that the pursuit must cease as soon as the offending vessel enters the territorial waters of another State".
You will see that the Manual explicitly states that firing at a vessel must be prohibited and I cannot believe that operations against illegal immigrants will ever involve circumstances in which firing at a vessel can be justified. I would, therefore, intend to ask Captain-in-Charge to have item 6 deleted. We would not, however, wish to prevent the firing of rounds across a fleeing vessel's bows.
5.
Captain-in-Charge also asks, at paragraph 6 of his letter, for details of
"any statutory authority for the use of shots in stopping ships". As I mentioned above, I do not believe that there is any such statutory authority. I would be grateful, however, if you, calling upon the knowledge of legal advisers, and other copy addressees could confirm this.
6. As we agreed, I would be grateful if you would seek the necessary legal advice. I am copying this letter to Kit Burdess in MAED, Jamie Waterton in Defence Department,
Captain-in-Charge Hong Kong and David Stalker in Treasury Solicitors Department.
JH
Your
Carl Pendell
Hauell
-2-
CONFIDENTIAL