CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 80

3.

80

i

#law of such Colony would and ought to have been had and

"exercised or instituted and carried on by them respectively

"if such offence had been committed and such person had been

"charged with having committed the same upon any water situ-

#ate within the limits of any such Colony, and within the

#limits of the local jurisdiction of the Courts of Criminal

"justice of such Colony"

The very wording of this section to my mind goes to

show it to be not merely declaratory of a jurisdiction already exerciseable by Colonial Courts but creative of a new -

jurisdiction.

That being so, it follows again that this Court in

deciding what is and what is not a piracy, is bound by the

interpretation of the term piracy which the English Courts

and Statutes have placed upon it, and is not entitled to

adopt any wider interpretation given by international jurists.

From Rex.v.Dawson down to A.G. of Hong Kong .V.Kwok A Sing the

proposition that piracy is only another term for sea robbery,

or in other words that robbery is an essential element of

piracy has (so far as can be ascertained) never been seriously

challenged, and as regards the Statutes their language,

particularly that of section 2 of 1 Vict.C.88, appears to be

founded on the assumption that piracy in itself involves

something more than armed violence at sea.

I agree therefore with my brother that the answer to the

question of law reserved is that an accused person cannot be

convicted of piracy in circumstances where no robbery has

occurred.

(Sa) R. E. Lindsell

Fuisne Judge

1st. April,1931.

Page 80Page 81