CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 83

have followed his argument correctly, he claimed

that this is the position of the courts of üyer and

Terminer in england and that any power possessed in

this matter by the courts in England had been

conferred upon the Jupreme Court of Hong Kong by

section 7 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, 1873,

(ürdinance No. 3 of 1873). This court, therefore,

on this view may be said to have obtained a juris-

diction in piracy both directly from international

law and also from the same source through the

channel provided by the Supreme Court Ordinance.

The importance of this submission lies in this

that if the court is here to refer for its juris-

diction to international law, and to it alone, then

its jurisdiction may be held not to be limited by

decisions given by the English courts proceeding

under the common law and the statutes of the realm

of england. More particularly, the learned Attorney

general has based his submission on the language used

in the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council in the case of "The Attorney General

for the Colony of Hong Kong v. Kwok A Jing" ( (1873)

L.k. 5 P.C. a.C. p. 179). In that case Kwok A sing

had been accused of piracy jure gentium.

He was

himself a Chinese subject and the crime alleged

against him was stated to have occurred upon the high

Seas and upon a French vessel. Having been found

in Hong Kong he was brought before a police magistrate

and was by him committed for trial on that charge

to the Supreme Court of the Colony. linbeas Corpus

proceedings followed, in the course of which the

matter

83