CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 66

-8-

66

Following out the train of his argument,

the learned Attorney General then proceeded to cite

a number of definitions and authoritative statements

contained in the works of international jurists.

A universal definition of piracy has never been

adopted. The opinions of jurists can be cited in

support of the proposition that an attack at sea

without the occurrence of a robbery may constitute

a piracy. I do not however propose to discuss these

definitions because I am adopting for myself the

view that the definition of the crime of piracy, for

the purposes of a trial either in England or in this

Colony, depends in the first instance not upon the

law of nations but upon the meaning attached to piracy

in the English statutes and in decisions of the

English courts. I am fortified in my opinion by

the opening statement in the Chapter on piracy con-

tained in East's "Pleas of the Crown" (1803 Edition)

volume 2, at p.794, as follows "By the civil law the

punishment of piracy was capi tal, of which the Admiral

took cognizance: but it does not fall within the

scope of this work to consider the offence otherwise

than as it is a marine felony triable under the King's

Special Commission by virtue of the statute 28 Hen.

VIII, c.15."

It is not necessary here to consider in

What circumstances the Admiral, acting within his

jurisdiction, may be empowered to suppress or

exterminate subjects of a foreign state whom he may

find following a career of piracy, as

as that word is

understood in the common speech of mankind.

It may