Rex. V.
Chung Tam Kwong, Leung Yan, Lau Kwong,
Tsang Sung, Tsang Hing, Li Hing, Yau Hing,
Wong San, Wong Tim, Li Shun Lee, Lui Sui,
and Tsang Kau.
78
JUDGMENT.
I concur. It may be that for certain purposes international
law forms part of the common law and thus becomes without
statutory assistance automatically enforceable by the Common
Law Courts. It may be that for such purposes statutes have
been passed which are in their nature no more than declara-
tory of principles of international law already recognised
and given effect to by those courts.
Yet in the case of piracy "jure gentium" it would seem
beyond doubt that international law has done no more than
establish the principle that "by engaging in piracy a person
be comes hostes humani generis" and forfeits all claim to
protection by his own country; and that any country may
therefore assume to punish him whether he is a subject of
that country or not and wherever the offence is committed".
Cf. Roscoe's Criminal Evidence 13th edition p.215 what
exactly constitutes a piracy and how it shall be tried and
punished in any particular country within the comity of
nations is left to be dtermined by that country.
In England prior to 1536 the Lord High Admiral took ---
cognisance of piracy as a crime, and by the Statute of Henry
Vil (28 Henry Vill,c.15) passed in that year and by further
Statutues of the first half of the 19th century first Royal
Commissioners then the Central Criminal Court and finally
the Common Law Courts of Assize, Oyer and Terminer and Gaol
Delivery assumed a concurrent jurisdiction. If any competent Court has jurisdiction, derived directly from International
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.