CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934 — Page 32

42

the Question the Report is of course final, though its

judicial effect is not so evident.

It may transpire that the Colonial Courts will

be in doubt as to whether, under the jurisdiction derived

from Section 2 of the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act

1849, the piracy there designated, is piracy jure gentium

as judicially defined up to 1849, or as more broadly con-

strued by the Judicial Committee in 1934.

The Report would still appear to leave open the

question of the jurisdiction of the municipal courts who

derive their authority from the 1849 Act.

If in practice it is found that this uncertainty

as to jurisdiction still exists, the Report does to some

extent seem to have made it easier, if thought desirable,

to take steps for removing such uncertainty by appropriate

legislation specifically conferring jurisdiction on the

Colonial Courts in all cases of piracy jure gentium.

1. Hare Court. Temple, E.C.4.

2.

Kenelm Preedy.

30th July, 1934.