CO885-(11-13) — Page 583

3287.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

19,

LTLL minim

CO.

Reference :-

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

MY LORD,

No. 290.

(WESTERN AUSTRALIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, 23rd February 1883. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 15th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us for our consideration two Despatches with their enclosures, which had been received from the Governor of Western Australia, respecting a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude passed against one J. O'Grady for the manslaughter of a Chinese coolie.

That it would be observed that the prisoner's counsel, Mr. Leake, had applied for a writ of error, but the Attorney-General for the Colony refused to grant his fiat.

That Mr. Bramston was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the point raised in those papers as to whether the writ of error applied for was or was not wrongly withheld by the Attorney-General.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That we are clearly of opinion that the writ of error was rightly withheld by the Attorney-General.

We do not think Mr. Leake is correct in his view that the offence committed was a statutable one, and that the insertion in the indictment of the words "on the high 8088 was essential for the purpose of disclosing an offence.

"

It is provided by the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96. s. 1. that, in the case of a crime com- mitted upon the high seas by a person in custody in the Colony, judges, juries, &c. in the Colony are to have the same jurisdiction as if the offence had been committed upon waters within the local jurisdiction of the criminal courts in the Colony.

It is clear, therefore, that the prisoner was tried by a competent court having complete jurisdiction over the case.

This being so, we think that after verdict and judgment no writ of error could properly be granted on the ground suggested, even if objection could at an earlier stage have been taken to the indictment, upon which we express no opinion, though it does not seem to us to be quite clear that it could.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby,

&c.

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

We have, &c.,

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.

▲ 19916.-269. 25.-12/84.