72
8.
II.
It would seem, on the other hand, that if the
...
indictment had been framed unier 8.2 of 1 Viot. c.8 the
accused could properly have been convicted, not only in
a court in England but also in a Colonial court, for
S.2 of the Admiralty offences (Colonies) Act 1849 applies
to "any person within any colony .... charged with
felony", and the offences constituted by S.2 of 1 Viet.
0.88 are declared to be felonies. Heme the only
questions are was the offence in the present osse within
that section, and were the accused persons contemplated
by that section? On the first point it would seem
that the provision exactly describes what occured in
the present case. It states to be guilty of felony an
person who "with intent to commit
before or immediately after committing
or immediately
the crime
of piracy in respect of any ship or vessel, shall assault
with intent to "urder, any person being on board of or
belonging to such ship or vessel
or unlawfully do any
act whereby the life of such person may be endangered........
The sole remaining question is therefore, was this provision
intended to ap ly to the case of foreigners com itting these
acts out of the jurisdiction? It is submitted that upon its
true interpretation it must have been intended to apply to
such persons.
9.
It is noteworthy that the above actions are declared
to be felonies not only if they take place immediately
before committing "the crime of piracy" but also if they
take place immediately after the commission of that crime.
Hence the legislature clearly contemplated that the
provision should be applicable to persons who had actually
been guilty of piracy. The provision is not, however
specifically limited to what may be called municipal
piracy and in the absence of any such specifio limitation
it must be presumed to apply to all cases of piracy, including therefore piracy
jure...