Burd 22.
21
27
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
20th February 1932.
S.W.1.
Dear Stuart King,
I regret that there has been some delay in
replying to your letter of the 20th January, with reference
to the decision of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in the piracy
case.
With regard to the Judgment of Mr Justice Wood
and any implications to be derived therefrom, I do not think
that he intended to imply that an indictment laid under the
Statute of 7 Will.lV. and 1 Vict.c.88 would have been successful.
It seems to me that both ar Justice Wood and his brother on the
Bench referred to the language employed in the traftsmanship of
this Statute in order to reinforce their decision as to what
precise facts constituted the offence of piracy jure gentium.
Apart, however, from any implications to be
deduced from the judgments mentioned above, would a prosecution,
such as you suggest, have been successful? I must assume, as
decided by the Court of Hong Kong that to constitute piracy
jure gentium an actual robbery is an essential ingredient.
Persons guilty of this offence receive neither recognition nor
protection by international law, and hence, the British Courts,
in dealing with it, have assumed a wider jurisdiction than the
territorial, or in some cases national, jurisdiction which they
G.STUART KING, ESQ., M.C.