CO885-(11-13) — Page 587

6036.

PUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE

༄། ། །། ༄།

سلسسس

CO.

Reference :-

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

MY LORD,

No. 294.

(QUEENSLAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Bramston's

Royal Courts of Justice, 10th April 1883. letter of the 27th March last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to acquaint us that a report had been received in the Colonial Office, through the Admiralty, from one of the naval officers on the Australian station, stating that one of the crew of the barquantine "Jabberwock " had been arrested and sent for trial to Queensland under the following circumstances.

The prisoner, who is believed to be a British subject, was one of the crew of the British ship "Jabberwock," and having deserted in a canoe was pursued by the ship's boat in charge of the second mate. On the boat nearing the canoe the prisoner fired a revolver and wounded the second mate in the breast; from the effects of this wound the mate died the same night.

The deserter surrendered himself on board Her Majesty's ship "Sandfly," and the Naval Court which was formed to investigate the case caused him to be sent to Queensland for trial on three charges, viz., of deserting from the "Jabberwock," of stealing certain articles from that ship, and of firing at and wounding the second

mate.

That the Attorney-General of Queensland advised the Colonial Government that the Colonial Court had no jurisdiction in the case, but the grounds of his opinion are not in the possession of the Secretary of State.

That Mr. Bramston was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether, under the circumstances stated, the Supreme Court of Queens- land had jurisdiction to try the accused under the Act 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96, or under section 267 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, or otherwise.

That Mr. Bramston was also to ask whether our opinion was affected by the question whether the man was or was not a British subject.

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

Report

That if the prisoner at the time he committed the offence of firing at the mate was in one of the ship's boats on the high seas, we think, whether he was a British subject or not, the Supreme Court of Queensland had jurisdiction to try him. But the mention of 8 canoe rather suggests that the desertion took place near shore, and that he may have been within territorial waters at the time, and that the “Jabberwock" may also not have been on the high seas.

Under the circumstances, therefore, the information before us is too meagre to enable us to express an opinion upon which reliance could be placed, the more so as the Attorney-General of Queensland has advised against the jurisdiction and we have not before us the reasons which led him to this conclusion,

We have, &c.,

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby,

&c.

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.

▲ 12916–299. 95.-19/84,