Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/134

 Modern International Law Problems. when on the high seas, where he is a mem ber oí the crew of that ship, in which case he may be assumed to have accepted foreign law for the time being. Sections 686 and 687 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Viet., c. 60), must also be referred to in this connection. Where any person ( I ) being a British subject is charged with hav ing committed any offense on board any British ship on the high seas, or in any for eign port or harbor, or on board any for eign ship to which he does not belong, or (2) not being a British subject, is charged with having committed any offense on board a British ship on the high seas, — and that per son is found within the jurisdiction of any court in her majesty's dominions,which would have had cognizance of the offense if com mitted on board a British ship within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction, that court shall have jurisdiction to try the offense as if it had been so committed (s. 686), the words italicised in s. 687, the substance of which will be stated immediately, should also be carefully observed, as they amount to legislation. Foreigners who have ceased to have any connection with a British ship, all offenses against property or person com mitted in or at any place either ashore or afloat out of Her Majesty's dominions, by any master, seaman or apprentice, who, at the time when the offense is committed, is ("' within three months previously has been employed in any British, ship, are to be punishable, as if committed within the juris diction of the admiralty of England (s. 687). It is doubtful whether, if the question were tried, the words in italics would receive a literal interpretation.1 It may be added as a concluding note on this subject, that piracy committed on the open seas, whether by a British subject or Sir Courtenay Ilbert ( "Government of India," p. 413, mu i) mentions another possible case of jurisdiction over foreigners fur offenses committed on foreign territory, viz. : breach servant ofof duty the crown. to the crown committed abroad by a foreign

111

not, comes within the criminal jurisdiction derived by the English courts from the old jurisdiction be made as to of the present admiral.heading Reference to themay ex cellent notes on the American law of the subject by the late Mr. Irving Browne in 5 " Ruling Cases" at p. 975, and 8 ib. at p.

IS2. Provision is made by 35 Hen. VIII, c. 2, for the trial in England of Treason, committed on land out of the realm. The obvious justification of this rule is that acts treasonable by English law may not be punishable by the law of the country in which they are committed. Probably the idea that as treason is a direct offense against the sovereignty of the crown, the right to punish it ought to be retained by the crown, may, to some .extent, have in spired it. It should be noted, however, that this rule is based on the same considerations that induce continental countries to exercise, as we have already observed that they do, their power of punishing offenses committed abroad. 3, Murder or manslaughter by a British subject on land outside the United Kingdom, is triable wherever the accused is apprehend ed or in custody in England (24 and 25 Viet., c. roo, s. 9). Conspiracy to »ntrdcr was made- felony in 1861, and in conse quence of the case of Reg. т. Bernard, 1858, i F. & F., 240, was extended so as to include conspiracies in England or Ireland to com mit murder, within or without the Queen's dominions (24 and 25 Viet., c. 100, s. 4). Accessories can be tried ( i ) in the case of a felony wholly committed in England by any court which can try the principal offender or can try felonies in the place where the act constituting the accessory was done; (2) in the case of a felony committed parti}- on sea and partly on land, within or without the Queen's dominions, by the court which can try the principal offender, or can try felonies committed in the country or place in which the accessory is apprehended