PIRACY IN THE CHINA SEAS.
OPINION
OF THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN
and MR. WILFRID LEWIS.
51
In our opinion the question whether or not the
full court of Hong Kong arrived at a correct decision in
quashing the conviction in the above case can only be
satisfactorily answered by approaching the matter de novo.
It is thus necessary to decide at the outset
what jurisdiction the Hong Kong Court had to try the twelve
They were Chinese subjects in a Chinese vessel
prisoners.
upon the high seas. Although it is not expressly so
stated, we feel entitled to assume that the acts with
which the prisoners were charged were not committed 'inter
fauces terrae', and took place more than three miles from
the coast of Hong Kong so as to be outside the zone
provided by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878.
From the above circumstances it results that these
prisoners in the absence of any relevant statute applying
to foreigners when outside that zone and in foreign ships,
were for no purpose subject to Imperial municipal law.
These prisoners, however, were liable to be tried and
punished for offences committed outside the three mile
zone if amounting to piracy "jure gentium". Reference
should be made to the exhaustive judgment of Cockburn C.J.
in Reg. v. Keyn (1876 2 Exch. D. 63 at pages 159 to 238),
where the history and scope of English criminal jurisdiction
over foreigners upon the seas was traced and examined.
It will be convenient to postpone dealing with
the questions whether actual robbery is an essential element
in the crime of piracy 'jure gentium' or whether a frustrated
attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy
and/
Page 50Page 51