10.
trespass unduly upon the municipal jurisdiction which
every civilised state is assumed to exercise over its
subjects. In the interests of International amity, any
unwarranted extension of Imperial jurisdiction over the
high seas is sincerely to be avoided.
as follows:
Our answers to the questions put to us are
(1) The conviction was correct and should not have been
quashed.
(2) A foreigner, when not in a British ship and outside
the three mile zone, cannot be proceeded against under
1 Vict C. 88 or in Colonial Courts by virtue of 12 and
13 Vict. C 96.
(3) It is unnecessary, in our opinion, to answer this
but we conceive great objection to legislation extending
Imperial Municipal jurisdiction beyond the limits at
present laid down.
(4) Having regard to the importance of the question
to the community at Hong Kong we think that this is a
proper case for special reference to the Judicial Committee
under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 if
As the judgment was one
think that an appeal
We are aware of the
His Majesty should think fit.
quashing the conviction we do not
would have lain under Section 3.
decisions in R v. Bertrand (L.R. 1 P.C. 520) and Rv.
Murphy (L.R. 2 P.C. 535). These, however, were c ases
in which a new trial had been ordered without jurisdiction.
In the present case, in spite of power to order a new trial
under Section 78 of the Hong Kong Criminal Procedure
Ordinance, the Court quashed the conviction, and we know
of/
GO