R v Benito Lopez
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 1105
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURTS OF ERROR
S. C 27 L. J. M. C. 48; 30 L T. O S. 277, 22 J. P 84; 4 Jur. N. S 98; 6 W R. 227; 7 Cox C. C. 431. Considered, R v. Lesley, 1860, Le. & Ca 221 Referred to, Cammell v. Sewell, 1858, 3 H. & N 617; R. v. Tirman, 1864, 10 L T 499, R v. Anderson, 1868, L. R. 1 C C. R. 161, "The Princess Royal," 1870, 39 L J. Ad 43;R. v Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex D 63; R v Carr, 1882, 10 Q B D 76
[525] 1858 regina v benito lopez regina v. christian sattler. (An English ship on the high seas is part of the territory of England ; and a foreigner on board such ship is subject to our laws, and therefore, if he there does an act which is a criminal offence by the law of England, he is amenable to that law, and may, by virtue of section 21 of the 18 & 19 Viet c 91, be tried for the offence before any Court of justice in the Queen's dominions having cognizance of such crimes if committed within its limits, within whose jurisdiction he may be brought , for when so brought he is, within the meaning of that section, " found " within such jurisdiction Neither the liability of a foreigner to punishment for an offence committed by him in an English ship on the high seas, nor the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country to try him for such offence, is affected by the fact that he was illegally and by force taken on board the ship and there illegally detained at the time of the cornmihsion of the offence, unless the act charged was committed for the purpose of releasing himself from illegal duress , and, therefore, where a foreigner, who was arrested in a foreign town and forced on board an English ship, while kept in custody in such ship on the high seas, killed the officer who arrested him out of malice piepenie and not with a view 1106 BEGINA V. BENITO LOPEZ DEARS. & BELL 526. to escape, it was held that, even assuming such arrest and detention to be illegal, he was guilty of murder, and was properly tried for such offence at the Central Criminal Court within whose jurisdiction he was brought.) [S. G 27 L. J. M. C. 48 ; 30 L T. 0 S. 277 , 22 J. P 84 ; 4 Jur. N. S 98 ; 6 W E. 227 ; 7 Cox C. C. 431. Considered, R v. Lesley, I860, Le. & Ca 221 Referred to, Ctmmell v. SeweU, 1858, 3 H. & N 617 ; R. v. Tit nan, 1864, 10 L T 499 , R v. Anderson, 1868, L. R. 1 C C. R. 161 , " The Prwces* Royal," 1870, 39 L J. Ad 43 ; R, v Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex D 63 ; R v Catr, 1882, 10 Q B D 76 ] "these cases, though separately reserved, are reported together, because similar matters of law arose in both cases, atid one judgment only was delivered by the Court. Reg-ma v. Lopez. On the trial of Bemto Lopez the following case was reserved and stated by Crompton J. The prisoner was tried before me at the Summer Assizes, 1857, at Exeter, on an indictment charging him with feloniously wounding George Smith, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, and was found guilty of unlawfully wounding, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Et was proved at the trial that the prisoner, a foreigner, being a sailor and one of the crew of the British ship " Ontario," maliciously and unlawfully wounded the prosecutor, also a foreigner and a sailor, [526] and one of the crew of the same ship, whilst on the high seas and in the said ship on a voyage from London to the coast of Africa. I reserved for the consideration of the Court the question, whether the prisoner, a foreigner, was properly convicted of the offence committed on the high seas charles grompton. This case was argued on 23d January, 1858, before Lord Campbell C. J , Cockburn C. J., Pollock C B , Coleridge J , Wightnian J , Erie J , Williams J., Martin B., Crompton J., Crowder J , Willes J , Watson B , Channell B. and Byles B Welsby (with him M Bere) appeared for the Crown Ballantme Serjt (instructed by the Solicitor to the Treasury) appeared for the prisoner. Ballantine Serjt. for the prisoner. This case is one of great importance, involving serious questions of international law. I propose to consider first, the operation of the statute 18 & 19 Viet, c 91, h 21, and then the more general question as to the liability of a foreigner to the operation of our laws. The question which arises upon the statute is whether, under the circumstances of this case, the prisoner was ' found " within the jurisdiction of the Court before which he was tried (a) I contend that [527] he was not so found. The case does not state that the prisoner was found within the jurisdiction Lord Campbell C J.-The prisoner was tried at Exeter, and therefore must have been found in the county of Devon. Ballantine .Serjt Then I contend that this enactment was intended to apply to eases where an offender, having escaped, is afterwards discovered within the jurisdiction of some Court competent to try persons for such offence Here the prisoner was not " found," but was " brought into " the jurisdiction in custody and against his will. If the statute is construed so as to apply to such a case as this, all particular jurisdictions will be rendered nugatory, and persons can be brought anywhere to be tried at the arbitrary will of those who have them in custody ; and an qfiender escaping from a ship after the commission or alleged commission of a 1 " - (p) The section enacts, that " if any person, being a British subject, charged with having committed any crime or offence on board any British ship on the high seas, or 01 any foreign port or harbour ; or if any person not being a British subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Public Prosecutor v Koo Cheh Yew
-
Re tivnan and Others
...punishment a ship is part of the territory of the nation to which she belongs: Wheat. Int. Law, p. 208, 2nd annot. ed.; Reg. v. Lopez (Dears. & B. 525); and the speech of Chief Justice Marshall already referred to (ante, pp. 660, 661). The term " piracy " is here used in its natural and lar......
-
R v Brosig,
...as a breach of the criminal law. The question put by Lord Campbell in Reg. v. SattlerENRENR (1858), Dears. & Bell, 525 at p. 543, 169 E.R. 1105, quoted by my brother Gillanders in his judgment in this case, may serve as an illustration. No such question arises in this case. The ‘looting......