67
!
to have implied that an setual robbery was an essential
•
ingedient of piracy These two cases, which are also
R. V. Dawson (13
the leading ones on this subject, are
State Trials 451) and A.G. for Hong Kong v. Kwok a bing
(1873, L.R.5 Privy Council A.C. 179), both of which are
sufficiently noticed in the judgment in the present
case and in the departmental correspondence. It is true
that in both these cases a robbery had in fact occurred,
so that no wider definition was necessary for the purposes
of the case; nevertheless it is difficult to escape
from the conclusion that the court was on each occasion
purporting to give a complete definition (11).
There are,
in addition, certain other cases in which a definition
similar to that given in R. v. Dawson and A.0. v. Kwok a 3ing
was adopted, and which are not mentioned in the judgment
of the Hong Kong Court in the present case. These
will be hoticed in due course.
5.
On the other hand, there are certain other
cases in which the court has apparently given a wider
11.
definition
This seems to follow from the language used; thus,
in R. v. Dawson: "piracy la only a sea term for "robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within "the jurisdiction of the Admiral. If a man "be assaulted within that jurisdiction and his "ship or goods violently taken away without "legal authority, this is rubbery and piracy"
these two terms are ap arently regarded as synonymoug "If the mariners of any ship shall "violently dispossess the meter, and afterwards "carry away the ship itself, or any of the goods "or tackle, apparel or furniture... this 18 "also robbery and piracy": and in A.G. v. Ewok a Sing the court said that R v. Dawson contained "a "correct exposition of the law as to what constitutes
piracy jure gentium".