1
64
3. It is unnecessary to recapitulate here the
statutes and decisions referred to in the judgment
of the Hong Kong Court in the present case and in the departmental corresponience, which go to establish the
soundness of the general proposition that "piracy"
committed by a foreigner out of the jurisdiction is
punishable under English law. The question is what
oonstitutes "piracy" in English law. Had the courts
been content to abstain from defining piracy on their
own account, and simply to punish acts of "piracy Jure
gentium", the implication would have been that they
regarded as piracy any act amounting to piracy in
international law, and it would have been permissible
to turn to international law in order to discover what
acts constituted piracy for pur.oses of English law.
In that event there can be no doubt that the offence
committed by the accused in the present case muat have
been held to be punishable, for writers on international
law are in general agreement that an unauthorized attack
on a vessel with intent to seize her, her cargo or
tackle, i.e. a mere attempt at robbery on the high
seam if accompanied by violence or intimidation,
is an act of piracy jure gentium, even though the
attack 18, in actual fact, frustrated. (2)
4. It is however difficult to see how the courts
could have simply referred to international law for a
definition of piracy jure gentium, sceing that the
2.
See below paragraphs 12-15.
authorities
...