CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933 — Page 52

53

-3-

by the statute 4 & 5 William IV C. 36 (which gave the

Central Criminal Court jurisdiction) or 7 & 8 Vict. C.2

which gave power to ordinary Courts of Assize to try

offences committed on the high seas and within the juris-

diction of the Admiral.

After

Admittedly piracy "jure gentium" was within the

jurisdiction of the Admiral, and to this extent the

Commissioners (subsequently the Central Criminal Court

and Assize Courts) obtained jurisdiction over foreigners

committing crimes in foreign ships on the high seas, though

Cockburn C.J. admitted that if Parliament had expressly

asserted a more extended jurisdiction it would have been

the duty of the Courts to recognise and endeavour to enforce such jurisdiction (pp. 160 and 207). At page 208

he examined the question whether English municipal law

either expressly or by implication had been extended to

foreigners in foreign ships on the high seas.

approving the doctrine laid down by Turner L.J. in Cope v. Doherty (1858 2 De G. & J. 614 at 624 affirming 4 K. & J.

367) that Parliament must not be presumed to have legislated

for foreigners and that to warrant such a conclusion the words of an Act ought to be express or its context very clear, Cockburn C.J. reached the conclusion that, up to 1876, no provision had been made by Parliament for trying foreigners for crimes committed generally upon the seas in foreign ships (p.213) while such legislation as had been applied either expressly or impliedly to foreigners within what may for convenience be termed territorial waters had dealt with the revenue, customs, the protection

of fisheries and kindred matters.

We feel satisfied that Cockburn C.J. in his

exhaustive/