CO885-(25-26) — Page 234

227

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TEREEN CO.

885/25

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

94

APPENDIX A.-REPORTS.

circular despatch of the 20th of September, 1890, sent out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that, for the future, fees taken in the Colonial Court of Admiralty would go into the local revenues and not to the officers personally, though compensation equal to the amount of the fees which would have been payable to the officers concerned might be paid to any officer of the old Vice-Admiralty Court so long as he held a similar office in the Colonial Court of Admiralty. from this despatch is annexed to this report.

An extract*

8. This arrangement appears to have been accepted by the majority of the Oversea Governments, though in a few cases provision was made by local statute, or by rules under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, for fees to continue to be paid to officers personally. It appears, therefore, to be beyond question that. except in so far as special provision in a different sense has been made by local legislation or rules of court under the Act of 1890 or otherwise, fees paid in Oversea Prize Courts must in each case go into the same fund as those taken in the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the Court, i.e., into the revenues of the Oversea Government.

9. This being the case it seems to us that the Oversea Governments, since they get the benefit of the fees which used to be paid to the officers by way of remuneration, should themselves provide for any remuneration to which they think their officers entitled owing to the additional work thrown on them by the Prize Court proceedings. Where the constitutional arrangements of the Government concerned make such a course necessary, the decision would, of course, be taken in consultation with the department of His Majesty's Government which supervises the administration of the territory affected.

10. It also seems to us to follow from the considerations set out above that the Crown, as captor, should not claim exemption from payment of the fees leviable in Oversea Prize Courts under the Prize Court rules.

11. Holding these views, we do not think it proper for us to suggest what the amount of the remuneration should be in each case. We desire, however, to offer observations on one or two points which appear to us to be of importance in this connexion.

12 Firstly. We do not consider that the Oversea Governments are bound to base the remuneration to be paid in each case on the amount of the fees which would have been payable to the officer concerned under the old system. We think that the Government can, and should, decide each case solely according to its merits, taking into consideration the amount of the ordinary salary of the officer concerned and the amount of additional work and responsibility thrown upon him by the Prize Court proceedings, and, further, that remuneration can, if thought desirable, be paid to officers who would not have been entitled to receive fees at all under the previous system. We understand that claims or suggestions for remuneration of the following officers have been put forward:-Judges, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Acting Registrars, Assistant Registrars, Marshals, Assistant Marshals, Assistant Ushers, Official Engineers, Accountants, Harbour Masters, Official Auditors, and clerical staff of the Court generally. We see no reason why remuneration should not be paid in all these cases if the Oversea Government concerned thinks it proper.

13. The foregoing observations do not apply to the Proper Officer of the Crown, who corresponds to the Procurator-General in this country. He is not an official of the Court, and we deal with his case separately below.

14. Secondly. We understand that in certain cases persons have been appointed to be officers of Prize Courts who are not salaried officials of the Oversea Government concerned. In such a case the terms of the appointment probably provide that the person appointed is to be remunerated by fees. Our recommendation could not, of course, override any arrangement of this kind, which would constitute an allocation of the Prize Court fees by the Oversea Government similar to that which has been effected in certain cases by local enactment or rules of court.

15. Thirdly. It may well be that in certain cases where, owing to the special arrangements made by rules of court or local enactment, officers are entitled to take fees personally, the amount payable to a particular officer may be in excess of that which the Oversea Government considers it desirable to allow him to retain. This is especially likely to occur in the case of the Marshal, who may be entitled to the whole of the one per cent. fee on sales which forms item 49 of Appendix B to the Prize Court Rules, 1914. In such a case the Imperial Govern-

*See Annexure B.

APPENDIX A.-REPORTS.

95

ment could make a grant of remuneration to the officer concerned under Section 10 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, as extended by Section 4 of the Prize Courts Act, 1915. If, however, a grant is made under these sections, the whole of the fees otherwise payable to the officer 'concerned will pass into the Consolidated Fund and therefore be lost to local revenues.

16.

We therefore recommend that, if such a case arises, steps should be taken to obtain an Act of Parliament empowering His Majesty in Council to remit to the local Government concerned the amount by which the fees payable under these two sections into the Consolidated Fund in the case of any British Possession or Protectorate exceeds the total amount granted by His Majesty under those sections to Judges and other officers in that British Possession or Protectorate. 17. Fourthly. With reference to fee 49 in Appendix B to the Prize Court Rules, 1914, we observe that in some cases this fee appears to have been claimed and to have been paid although no sale took place, the ship having been delivered to the Crown in pursuance of an order under Order 27, Rule 1, of the Prize Court Rules, 1914, as amended by the Order in Council of 3rd February, 1915. We consider it plain that the amount which would have been payable in respect of fee 49 if a ship or goods had been sold under order of the Court is equally payable by the Crown if an order for delivery in lieu of sale is made "subject to the ment by the Crown of such costs, expenses, and other sums as might have been pay- ordered to be paid out of the proceeds of sale if the property had been sold under order of the Court." We do not think, however, that the Marshal's claim to take this amount for his own use is justified by the rule in question. enables the Court to order payment into Court of the equivalent of fee No. 49. It The rule only does not direct that where the Marshal is entitled to take fee No. 49 for his personal use he is also to be entitled to take its equivalent. Fee No. 49 represents a payment to the Marshal for services rendered in connexion with a sale, and there is no ground for allowing this equivalent to go to the Marshal personally, nor does the wording of the relevant Acts and Rules appear to entitle him to take the fee. This conclusion applies to all Marshals. whether they are salaried officials of the local Government or not, and whether or not the terms of their appointment include an agreement to remunerate them by fees. The point is one of consider- able importance, as very few ships have up to the present time been sold under an order of an Oversea Prize Court, almost all sales having been carried out by the Executive after an order for delivery under Order 27, Rule 1 (1). Moreover, delivery orders have also been made in connexion with condemned cargo many cases.

18. We will now proceed to consider the position of the Proper Officer of the Crown, who is an executive officer of the Crown and is no more an official of the Court than is any other legal practitioner who appears before it. In the United Kingdom, the Procurator-General, who is the Proper Officer of the Crown in prize cases, already receives a salary as Treasury Solicitor, and he acts for the Crown in prize cases as solicitor only and not as counsel. receives no additional remuneration for the work done by him in prize cases, but The Procurator-General any extra expenses incurred in his department on account of prize work, includ- ing counsel's fees, are defrayed out of public funds. In the majority of Oversea territories the Proper Officer of the Crown is a salaried officer of the Oversea Government. He represents the Crown as captor and acts for it both as solicitor and as counsel. It therefore seems plain that whatever remuneration is to be paid to the Proper Officers in Oversea Territories in addition to their official salaries should be paid out of Imperial funds and not out of the revenue of the Oversea Government concerned, because the Imperial Government alone is interested in the proceeds of prize,* and these officers are employed solely in preparing and presenting the case of the Imperial Government.

in

19. As to the method of remuneration. it will be observed that Appendix C to the Prize Court Rules. 1914, contains a table of fees to be taken by practitioners in the Prize Court. Where a person appointed to act as Proper Officer of the Crown is not a salaried official of the local Government, the terms of the appoint- ment will presumably contain provision for his remuneration on the scale laid down in Appendix C. In such a case it would no doubt be necessary to adhere to the agreement. Where the Proper Officer is a salaried official of the local

*NOTE. The grounds for this statement will be set out separately in the Committee's report upon paragraph (h) of the Treasury letter printed in Annexure A to this report.