CO885-(10-11) — Page 674

12588.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

MY LORD,

No. 537 A.

(MALTA.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Temple, November 7, 1868. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 31st August last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the accompanying letter and its enclosure from the Colonial Office c.o. Aug. asking for your Lordship's opinion as to the powers and duties of the Maltese Courts 15, with respect to their jurisdiction in the matter of crimes committed at sea by foreigners on board foreign ships, and to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion thereupon.

+

Mr. Hammond was also at the same time pleased to observe that in so far as your Lordship was informed, the Secretary of State for the Colonies is mistaken in supposing that Her Majesty's Government are engaged upon the consideration of measures having in view to give such power to British courts of law, although it is true that the question of concluding consular conventions with foreign states has been referred to Mr. Reilly with the object of endeavouring to discover some means of ensuring the advantages of such convention (which as entered into between foreign states include matters relating to ships of one country while at sea or while within the jurisdiction of another country) without infringing upon the well understood principles of British law. We are also honoured with a note from Mr. Egerton bearing date the 11th of September last, stating that with reference to Mr. Hammond's letter of the 31st of August, he was directed to forward to us a letter from the Colonial Office respecting the proposed amendment of the criminal law of Malta.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken this matter into our con- sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That the observations of the Crown Advocate in the extract of the letter forwarded to us refer to the propriety of passing Acts to give the Maltese Courts jurisdiction in the cases-1st, of murder committed by mortal blows inflicted on the high seas by foreigners on foreigners, whose death occurs within Maltese jurisdiction in consequence of such blows; 2nd, of thefts committed at sea by foreigners on board foreign vessels when the alleged thief lands in Malta with the stolen property in his possession.

We think that in neither case should power be conferred on the Maltese Courts to exercise jurisdiction over the alleged offenders. The British Statute 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. 8. 10 referred to in the Crown Advocate's letter and in the letter from the Board of Trade does not, we think, confer jurisdiction on British Courts to try a foreigner who mortally wounds another foreigner on board a foreign ship on the high suas, This was expressly though the wounded man die of the stroke in England or Ireland.

held in the case of Reg. v. Lewis on a case reserved by Mr. Baron Martin reported in 1 Dearsley and Bell C. cases 182. The marginal note to that case accurately states the decision thus: "The prisoner and the deceased were foreigners, and the latter died

#

at Liverpool from injuries inflicted by the prisoner on board a foreign ship on the "high seas. Held that the offence was not cognizable by our law.”

That decision was given after 9 Goo. 4. c. 31. was in operation, the provisions of which are re-enacted (in substance) by the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100.

In the case of theft also committed on board a foreign ship on the high seas, we think that British Courts would have no jurisdiction, and that the Maltese Courts cannot properly deal with such cases, and that there would be grave objections to their being empowered to do so.

With regard to the remarks of the Crown Advocate on the practice of discharging foreigners found in custody on board foreign vessels touching at Malta, it is not stated whether any particular or special laws exist in Malta under which persons so in custody are liberated. But having regard to the law of England under which we apprehend that a foreigner detained in custody here on board a foreign ship for an alleged crime committed on the high seas and not cognizable by the courts of the country would be

o 16278.-950. 95.-5/86.

1868.