11.
22
END
by the belief that the appellant, a person of Chine se
parentage, with a Chinese name, and employed on board
a Chinese vessel was a national of China. The moment
that the appellant established affirmatively, under section
18 of the Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1889 that he was
not a national of China proceedings for his extradition
failed. The Chinese authorities in effect were claiming
to exercise a jurisdiction which they had surrendered in
1858. In those circumstances, if the appellant's plea to
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of this Colony were
uphold the appellant, so long at least as he remains in
Hong Kong, would not be answerable to any Court for the
murder which he has committed.
In our opinion, from the conduct of the Chief
Officer and the boatswain on board the Cheung Keng
and from the fact that the Chinese Government, after
the failure of their proceedings for the extradition
of the appellant have made no diplomatic respresentations
with a view to having the appellant put back on board the
vessel on which he was serving, it is a reasonable and
proper inference that the immunity enjoyed by members of
the crew of an armed Chinese vessel has in this case been
willingly waived.
The conclusion to which we have come is that the
decision of the learned Chief Justice was right, and this
appeal must be dismissed.
(SD) A.D.A.MACGREGOR C.J.
(SD) R.E.LINDSELL, P.J.
(SD) C.G.ALABASTER, J.
15th October, 1937.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.