59
-9-
recently piracy was regarded as practically another term
for sea robbery (see the trial of Captain Kidd reported
in 14 State Trials p. 123, and of Bonnet and others 15
State Trials p. 2341, where the several indictments laid
are set out in full: see also per Lord Abinger C.J. in
R. v. Macgregor 1 Car & Kirwin at 431). But weighing
the various opinions judicial and otherwise as well as
we can, we are of the view that the old definition
expressed by Sir Charles Hedges and approved by the Privy
Council in Kwok a Sing's case is not conclusive to the
effect that actual robbery is an essential ingredient in
piracy jure gentium'. It is to be observed also that
Sir Robert Phillimore in the Chapter already referred to
cites several of these authorities without, apparently,
regarding them as being in conflict with his definition
of piracy quoted above.
In our opinion therefore the full Court of
Hong Kong was wrong when it decided to quash the conviction
of these twelve prisoners. We think the indictment,
verdict, and conviction were proper upon the facts, and
if on a future occasion a similar case a rises of an
unsuccessful attack by pirates, the Hong Kong Court is
entitled to, and should convict. But it seems to us that, before convicting in such circumstances the Court should
have clear evidence of the attack being made with intent
Under the to rob, or in other words, made piratically.
present law homicide by a foreigner when not in a British
ship and outside Hong Kong territorial waters ( and a fortiori lesser offences such as assaults) are not
cognisable by Imperial Courts. It is of obvious importance
that the scope of judicial treatment by any state of piracy jure gentium' should not be extended so as to
trespass/