102
END
any such person for any such offence wherewith he may be
charged as aforesaid, as by the law of such Colony would
and ought to have been had and exercised or instituted
and carried on by them respectively if such offence and
been committed and such person had been charged with having
itted the same upon any water situate within the limits
of any such Colony, and within the limite of the local
jurisdiction of tas Courts of Grisinal justice of suon
Colony."
The very wording of this section to my mind goes to
snow 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
anı Statutes have plased upon it, and is not entitled to
adopt any wider interpretation given by international
jurista. from Rex.v.Dawson down to a.G. of song ong.V.
Kwok A Bing the proposition that piracy is only another
term for sea robbery, or in other words that roubery 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.0.88, appears to be founded on tae
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.
(8gd.) R.E. Lindsell.
quisne Judge
1st april, 1951.