CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 77

-19-

77

not make the crime.

The view that an attack upon a ship at sea

by itself constitutes a piracy jure gentium, and under the criminal law of England, is set out in

Halsbury's "Laws of England" vol.9, p.523, para.1057. It has further the support of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who, in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" 19th edn., 1928, vol.1V, p.152, notes "at common law it may be said to comprise any armed

violence at sea which is not a lawful act of war. **

The same definition was also adopted by the late Dr. Kenny in his "Outlines of Criminal Law." With

great respect to these learned authors, it seems to me that these definitions err if their purpose is to define the crime as it is punishable by legal proceedings taken in England or in this court.

I have regarded the jurisdiction of the local court as something carved out of the juris- diction of the Admiralty. It may be that the High Court of Admiral ty sitting to try a person accused of piracy would be bound by the same definition to

which common law courts in England have adhered. Wider definitions may have their use where executive action by the Admiral comes up for consideration.

For the above reasons, the answer which I give to the question of law reserved is that a

robbery is necessary to support a conviction for

piracy in this court.

(sd) J.R.Wood,

Chief Justice,

1st April

1931.

>