CO129-534-9 Law of Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 1-4-1931 - 20-4-1932 — Page 85

He was indicted at the Central Criminal Court for manslaughter and the question before the court waS whether the Central Criminal Court had power to try the offence. The question of the derivation of jurisdiction from international law was considered by ir R. Phillimore in his judgment (at p.68); he said "It being then in my opinion clear that the jurisdiction to try this prisoner was not derived from the common law, or the statute law, or the law of the liigh Court of Amiralty, what law did render

As I the English court competent for this purpose? understand the contention on behalf of the crown the answer is international law. in other words, by the consent of all civilised states, England has become entitled to include within her realm a marine league of sea and therefore has jurisdiction over a foreign vessel within that limit. It is indeed a most grave question whether if this statement of international law were correct, nevertheless, an act of Parliament would not be required to empower the court to exercise jurisdiction."

85

In my opinion the argument that a juris- diction whether in England or in this Coleny in respect of an extra-territorial occurrence can be derived by a court from international law directly without the intervention of legislation cannot be sustained. Legislation is necessary; and the crime of piracys being extra-territorial, tim legislation which is to empower this court to try that offence must be logisc

To hold sny lation of the imperial parliament. other view would lead to the conclusion that it might be possible for this court to exercise alternatively

powers