CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933 — Page 55

56

-6-

anywhere (per Cockburn C.J. in Reg. v. Keyn at pp. 163, 168-9:

Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1 Chapter 20 Section 1;

Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9 p. 524: Archbold's

Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 28th Edition,

pp. 670-1: Hall's International Law, 8th Edition, pp. 311,

317). That view was held by the Privy Council in A.G.

for Hong Kong v. Kwok a Sing (1873 L.R. 5 P.C. 179 at 199,

200), and the jurisdiction specifically recognised in

the Courts of that Colony. In this respect we think the

acting Chief Justice was wrong when he expressed the

opinion that such jurisdiction in order to exist would

probably require to be founded on an express Statute of

the Imperial Parliament. But even so, it seems to us

that the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 (12 & 13

Vict. C. 96) coupled if necessary with the earlier Acts

11 William III C. 7 and 46 Geo. III C. 54 have effect-

ively invested the Hong Kong Courts with jurisdiction to

try foreigners charged with piracy 'jure gentium' upon

the high seas. But such jurisdiction is confined to

acts falling within the conception of piracy 'jure gentium'

under international law. Any extension and conversely

any restriction in the definition of that crime in

English municipal law has not affected that jurisdiction.

Thus it remains to examine whether actual

robbery is a necessary ingredient in the commission of

piracy jure gentium' or whether an unsuccessful attempt

to rob upon the high seas fulfills that crime. Up to

the present case, this question seems to have been treated

academically, for no direct answer has been given judicially,

facts apparently not having arisen to require it.

For/