CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 102

102

END

any such person for any such offence wherewith he may be

charged as aforesaid, as by the law of such Colony would

and ought to have been had and exercised or instituted

and carried on by them respectively if such offence and

been committed and such person had been charged with having

itted the same upon any water situate within the limits

of any such Colony, and within the limite of the local

jurisdiction of tas Courts of Grisinal justice of suon

Colony."

The very wording of this section to my mind goes to

snow it to be not merely declaratory of a jurisdiction

already exerciseable by Colonial Courts but creative of a

new jurisdiction,

That being so, it follows again that this Court in

deciding what is and what is not a piracy, is bound by the

interpretation of the term piracy which the English Courts

anı Statutes have plased upon it, and is not entitled to

adopt any wider interpretation given by international

jurista. from Rex.v.Dawson down to a.G. of song ong.V.

Kwok A Bing the proposition that piracy is only another

term for sea robbery, or in other words that roubery is

an essential element of piracy has (so far as can be

ascertained) never been seriously challenged, and as

regards the Statutes their language, particularly that of

section 2 of 1 Vict.0.88, appears to be founded on tae

assumption that piracy in itself involves something more

than armed violence at sea.

I agree therefore with my brother that the answer to

the question of law reserved is that an accused person

cannot be convicted of piracy in circumstances where no

robbery has occurred.

(8gd.) R.E. Lindsell.

quisne Judge

1st april, 1951.