9709.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TIILIC.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 725.
(GIBRALTAR.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's
Temple, August 23, 1871. letter of the 12th instant, stating that, with reference to the report of the Queen's Advocate of the 4th ultimo, herewith enclosed, he was directed to transmit to us the accompanying correspondence relative to the question of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of Gibraltar over British Consular Officers in Morocco, and he was to request that we would take the enclosed papers into consideration and furnish your Lordship with our opinion on this matter, and also as to the course which should be pursued with regard to the specific case of Mr. Vice-Consul Stokes therein referred to.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That we, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, not having had the honour to be consulted by your Lordship in the earlier stage of this business, are unable to say more with reference to the Queen's Advocate's report of the 4th of August 1871 than that we concur in the views expressed therein as to the effect of the limitation clause of the Order in Council of August 1857.
We are all of opinion, upon the information now disclosed to us, that the Court of Gibraltar had not power to issue process against persons not within its local jurisdic- tion, and consequently none in the present case to serve Mr. Stokes with a writ of summons whilst he was within the empire of Morocco. We may observe that the question arises, not exactly as it is put in Mr. Hammond's letter as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar over British Consular Officers in Morocco, but as to the jurisdiction of the Court over British subjects in general, for Mr. Stokes is sued, not in his character as Vice-Consul, nor for anything (on the face of the proceedings) done by him, as such, but for ordinary trespasses. While we think it right to point this out, we do not think that the Supreme Court has other or exceptional jurisdiction as to the issuing of writs of summons against Consular Officers from the jurisdiction enjoyed by it over British subjects in general. As far as we can judge from the papers before us, Mr. Stokes appears to have acted with perfect propriety, and simply in the execution of his judicial or quasi-judicial functions as Vice-Consul; and we think, therefore, that your Lordship would be warranted in taking such steps, or directing such steps to be taken, for his defence as the course of the Foreign Office sanctions in cases where Consular Officers are sued for acts done in the honest discharge of their duty. Should the judgment in the Court of Gibraltar assert the jurisdiction of the Court in a case like the present, it may be very fit' to have the matter brought at once for decision before the Judicial Committee, and decided as a matter of law, apart from the facts of the case. The facts appear, as far as we can judge, to afford a complete defence to Mr. Stokes, but it may be desirable, as a precedent, that the assertion of jurisdiction (if made) by the Court of Gibraltar should not pass unquestioned. There is nothing to show that Mr. Stokes has by any act of his waived the point of juris- diction; but on this matter we desire to be understood as speaking with some reserve, from the fact that the technical forms of the proceeding are not before us.
The Right Hon. the Earl Granville, K.G.
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
R. P. COLLIER,
J. D. COLERIDGE.
TRAVERS TWISS.
0
16978.-940. 95.-5/86.
--
*