not make the crise.
The view that an attack upon a mip at sea
by itself constitutes a piracy jure gentium, and
under the criminal law of England, is set out in
tialsbury's "Laws of England" vol.9, p.523, para.1087.
It has further the support of Bir James Fitzjamos
Stephan who, in his "Commentaries on the Laws of
England" 19th edn., 1923, vol.If, p.152, notes *a
common law it may be said to comprise any araed
violence at sea which is not a lawful act of war.
The mase definition was also adopted by the late Mr.
Kemy in his "Vutlines of Criminal Law.* with
great respect to Luese learned authors, it seems to
me that tamse 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.
siralty. it may be that the igh
Court of admiralty nitting 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
eive to the question of law reserved is that a
robbery is necessary to support a conviction for piracy in tais court.
(Byd.) J.A. Good,
Chief Justice,
1st april, 1931.
99
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.