39
Courts also, to try forei¿ners committing on the high seas act
of violence which do not include actual robbery; if this
question should be answered in the negative, the further problem then arises whether it would be competent for the Imperial jarliament to pass legislation conferring the
necessary jurisdiction.
The questions raised by these two problems ere
discussed in the Judgments of the Court and in the
correspondence and memoranda, to which the law officers are
respectfully referred. In these circumstances it is not
thought that any useful purpose would be served by repeating
here the arguments therein set forth. It may however be
observed that the questions appear to turn to a large extent on whether the definition of pirsoy given by Sir C.Fedges in R. v. Dawson (13 State Trials) is, as the Court at Fong cong appear to have assumed, to be taken as a comprehensive
definition, in the sense that no not which does not fall
within its tervis oan properly be regarded as amounting to the crime of piracy, or whether, as the Treasury Solicitor in his mimte of the 9th karch, 1938 mests, that definition was merely a definition for the purpose of the particular case undɛr consideration and is in no sense to be taken as
(a)
A further question also arises whether the presumption that an Inglis Act creating a criminal offence is intended to be limited to matters done within the territory of the United Kingdom necessarily applies to Acte dealing with the offence of piracy.
The Law officers will observe that it has been
suggested that it may be desirable (should they take a certa view of the law) that there should be a special reference to the Judicial Committee of the rivy Council under Section 3
(a) Fawkins Fleas of the Grown, vol. 1 chapter 20, of Firacy, the wider definition in section 1 of this chapter seems to have been accepted in the Judgments of Lawrence and Blesser lä..J. in this resent case of the China havization Co against
* but, se4. NAFTSWOr
BUDES:
2.