CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 62

-4-

62

matter came before the Judicial Committee. In their

judgment the Judicial Committee decided that the

custody was legal. The language of their judgment, in which the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate upon an indictment for piracy jure gentium was for-

mally recognised, did not contain any reference to

statute or ordinance on which such jurisdiction might

The Judicial Committee contented itself

by observing that the crime alleged was by the law

of nations, justiciable everywhere.

be founded.

5

I have noticed that a similar cubmission

was made by the counsel for the prisoner in "The King v. Depardo" (1 Taunton at p.29) who argued that

"the statute 28 Hen. VIII, c.15, merely altered the

mode of trial in that court, and its jurisdiction

still continues to rest on the same foundations as

it did before that act; it is regulated by the civil

law, et per consuetudines marinas, grounded on the law of nations which may possibly give to that court

a jurisdiction that our common law has not." It

appears that in that case no judgment was given by

thecourt.

During the argument I drew the attention

of the learned Attorney General to the fact that the same point had been taken for the crown in England in "The queen v. Keyn" (L.R. 2 Ex.Div. p.63).

In

that case a German subject, who was the master of a

foreign ship, had, during a voyage when his ship was within three miles of the coast of England, by his negligence, caused the death of a passenger upon a British ship with which his vessel was in collision.