CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 47

PILUN FOR

INFOR

SCHEME

OR DISABLED

MEN

Any further communication

should be addressed to-

The Secretary of the Admiralty,

London, S.W.1,

!

Sir,

M.3619/31. G

quoting

22SEP +

L.P.

-No. 8.

Admiralty, S.W.1. 47 21st September 1931.

of Juan,

11

Gov

5

Aune (17

I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners

of the Admiralty to refer to your communication of the 23rd July, No. 82826/31, concerning the position arising out of the judgment of the Full Court of Hong Kong in the case of Rex v Chung Tam Kwong and others and to request that the following remarks may be laid before Mr. Secretary Thomas.

2.

My Lords observe that the judgment of the Full Court of Hong Kong does not profess to discuss the powers of theexecutive authorities to deal, within their own sphere, with piratical acts at sea. It merely states that the Courts have no legal powers at present to try as piracy anything but a successful robbery at sea. If this position were to be accepted, however, it could not but have far-reaching effects on the position of the executive authorities, unless some such solution of the question as is suggested in para.4 below were to be found practicable.

3.

The accepted interpretation of the piratical acts which H.M.Ships are instructed to suppress, by Article 957 of the King's Regulations, includes many acts apart from, or short of, robbery at sea. The object of H.M.Ships is, wherever possible, to interrupt the piratical attempts before the robbery is effected. Ships are instructed that pirates are to be sent in to the nearest British Court for trial, and the instructions for ships on the China Station provide that, even though taken in flagrante delicto on the High Sea, pirates are not to be punished except by Court of Law. If, therefore, the Courts were unable to try such cases unless the robbery had been consummated, this would mean that

The Under Secretary of State,

COLONIAL OFFICE.

H.M.

pirates.....