3.
80
i
#law of such Colony would and ought to have been had and
"exercised or instituted and carried on by them respectively
"if such offence had been committed and such person had been
"charged with having committed the same upon any water situ-
#ate within the limits of any such Colony, and within the
#limits of the local jurisdiction of the Courts of Criminal
"justice of such Colony"
The very wording of this section to my mind goes to
show it to be not merely declaratory of a jurisdiction already exerciseable by Colonial Courts but creative of a new -
jurisdiction.
That being so, it follows again that this Court in
deciding what is and what is not a piracy, is bound by the
interpretation of the term piracy which the English Courts
and Statutes have placed upon it, and is not entitled to
adopt any wider interpretation given by international jurists.
From Rex.v.Dawson down to A.G. of Hong Kong .V.Kwok A Sing the
proposition that piracy is only another term for sea robbery,
or in other words that robbery is an essential element of
piracy has (so far as can be ascertained) never been seriously
challenged, and as regards the Statutes their language,
particularly that of section 2 of 1 Vict.C.88, appears to be
founded on the assumption that piracy in itself involves
something more than armed violence at sea.
I agree therefore with my brother that the answer to the
question of law reserved is that an accused person cannot be
convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has
occurred.
(Sa) R. E. Lindsell
Fuisne Judge
1st. April,1931.
Page 80Page 81