CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 67

-9-

67

be that by the law of nations, a forcible act of

hostility committed upon the sea without the sanction

of a national commission, may by itself be a

sufficient foundation for disciplinary action on

the part of the Admiral. When interrupted in his

operations a pirate is treated as an enemy and as

one without the rights of a belligerent.

It may

well be, as suggested by Sir James Fitzjanes Stephen

in his "Digest of the Criminal Law" that no naval

officer would hesitate to seize an armed vessel

belonging to no state and obviously cruising for

piratical purposes; also, that a pirate is a name

of a known class of persons like a soldier or

sailor and that a man may be a pirate though he has

never actually robbed as he may be a soldier though

he has not actually fought. But the legal status

of a person arrested for piracy alters when he is

brought to trial. A person here accused is no

longer hostis humani generis; he is a person on

trial under the common law. He enjoys the legal

presumption of innocence; and before he can be

convicted, the crown must be evidence establish

against him a crime committed within the jurisdiction

of the Admiralty which is recognised under the law

of the realm interpreted by the judgments of the

courts as the crime of piracy punishable by the

court in which he is tried.

By the Offences of the Sea Act, 1844,

(7 & 8 Vict., c.2, s.1,) Justices of Assize Oyer and

Terminer and Gaol Delivery were given all the powers

for trying of offences committed within the juris-