CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 70

-12-

.70

1

therefore, the orthodox definition of piracy be correct, it would appear that without a robbery no conviction could be obtained for the crime of piracy. However, on the question at that time, the validity of tat limitation was not accepted by me and I allowed the indictment to go to the jury.

Now, in consideration of the question of

law reserved, my attention has been drawn to the record in East's 'Pleas of the Crown" (volume II, at p.807) where it appears that this interpretation placed upon the statute of Henry VIII is not a matter of scholastic opinion but is based upon a decision reached by the judges in conference, Holt C.J. pre- siding, in 1702 in connection with the trial of

"Rex v. Snape and Aires". The judges decided, with

two dissentients, that the statute of Henry VIII extended only to such offences as would be felony if committed on land. By that decision this court

is bound. It is not open to this court at this

time to hold that incidents at sea which do not

constitute a felony can amount to a piracy punishable under the statute of Henry VIII. Unless, therefore, the statute founding the jurisdiction of this court in aumiralty offences has created a wider jurisdiction in piracy than that conferred by statute upon the courts in England it would appear that my decision to entertain thi indictment was wrong in law.

The following point may perhaps be

considered arguable, but it seems to me a correct

proposition to say that the jurisdiction of the English courts in piracy which was created by the

X

Page 70Page 71

-13-