CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933 — Page 53

54

-4-

exhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on

such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act 1698 (Halsbury's

Statutes IV p.334), the Piracy Act 1821 (p.343 op. cit.),

the Offences at Sea Acts 1799 and 1806 (pp. 401 and 417),

the Murders Abroad Act 1817 (p. 440), the Piracy Act 1837

(p.461), the Admiralty Offences Act 1844 (p.476) and

the Piracy Act 1850 (p. 520) had he considered that the

provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or

impliedly referred to foreigners, for although the crime

charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter the principle at

issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various

municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in

the case or other members of the Court cited them as

conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners

in foreign ships.

Up to 1878 therefore we think that while for the

purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as

customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases

been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there

was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our

criminal Courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners

at sea unless committed on board a British ship or falling

under the definition of piracy 'jure gentium'. The ratio

decidendi of Cockburn C.J. and the majority of the Court

was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters

Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to

declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C.J.

in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the

jurisdiction of our Courts extended to all offences

committed within three miles of the coast; but subject to

that extension we think that the law of the high seas

remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C.J. (see

Harris/