CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 17

Mr.Duncan.

17

that

I expect you would prefer to deal with the

attached letter No.20 in file from Stuart King.

www

Mr.Justice Wood's Judgment refers to the

Statute 7 W.4 and 1 Vict.Chap.88 at pp.14-15 and

18-19, and that of Mr.Justice Lindsell at p.3. of

these two Judgments I prefer the latter, which has

the merit of being concise. That of Mr. Justice Wood,

though no doubt replete with learning, fails in one

essential particular, namely, lucidity. In his

ramblings through the various English Statutes he seems

to get involved.

The Judgment of Mr.Justice Wood, as inter-

preted by Stuart King, leaves it to be implied that,

if the indictment had been laid under the Statute of

7 W.4 and 1 Vict., a conviction would have been upheld.

I have read through the Judgment most carefully, and

I cannot see that any such implication was intended.

It seems to me that both Judges referred to the

language employed in the draftsmanship of this Statute

in order to reinforce their decision as to what

precise facts constituted the offence of piracy jure.

gentium.

Apart altogether from any implication to be

deduced from the Judgments of the two Judges, would a

prosecution, as suggested by Stuart King, be successful?

For this purpose I must assume as decided by the

Com

"

Court of Hong Kong, that to institute piracy jure

gentium an actual robbery is an essential ingredient.

Persons guilty of this offence receive neither

recognition nor protection by international law, and

hence, the British Courts, in dealing with it, have

assumed a wider jurisdiction than the territorial, or

in some cases national, jurisdiction which they

normally