DOCSLIB.ORG

Imagereal Capture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Imagereal Capture ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (Part 1) That a judicial jurisdiction in Admiralty should have survived its long and tortuous history is testimony of its usefulness to maritime commerce. Indeed, Admiralty flourished in the United States when Constitutional foresight and judicial enterprise severed the jurisdiction from its historical restraints. Yet, in England, five hundred years of judicial confrontation and legislative tampering had eroded the jurisdiction and sentenced it to relative obscurity, until 20th century legislation restored some of its pres- tige. Following the English reforms implemented by the Administration of Justice Acts 1956 and 1970 (U.K.), New Zealand took the opportunity to reorganize her jurisdiction with the Admiralty Act 1973 (N.Z.). Australia, however, did not proceed with a proposal to update her colonial jurisdiction until now. Currently, a Bill is being prepared which may inject new life into Australian Admiralty in the 1980s. This article attempts to trace the historical misfortunes of Admiralty and thereby reveal the inadequacies of the present Australian jurisdiction. EVOLUTION OF ADMIRALTY The origin of the judicial jurisdiction1 invested in the admirals of the English fleets is obscure: but a distinctive curial function seems to have emerged in the 14th century3 to entertain foreign claims over piracy spoils and prize.4 Following English victory in the Battle of Sluys in 1340, a tribunal was established to administer the customs of the sea and Edward I11 appointed an admiral of all the fleets with authority to decide causes according to the maritime law.5 In 1361, the King's Council confirmed * Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash University. 1 On the history of Admiralty generally, see the material cited in the following footnotes. 2 W. Senior, 'The First Admiralty Judges" (1919) 35 L.Q.R.73, 74; D. W. Robert- son, Admiralty and Federalism (Mineola, N.Y., Foundation, 1970) 37. 3 R. G. Marsden, Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1894) Vol. I, xi-xlix; Vol. 11, lvii-lxii; R. v. Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63, 167; cf. The Zeta 118921 P. 285, 100 4 T,-L. Mears, "The History of the Admiralty Jurisdiction" in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (1968) Vol. 11, 312, 319-20; F. R. Sanborn, Origins of the Early English Maritime and Commercial Law (N.Y., The Century GO., 1930) 271 et seq. 6 L. H. Laing, "Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England" (1946) 45 Mich. L.R. 163, 167-9. 92 Monash University Law Review [VOL.6, DEC.'791 that felonies, trespasses and injuries occurring on the sea should be tried by the admiral according to the law maritime and not adjudged by the common la@ and 14th century records disclose proceedings in local courts being stayed in deference to the admirals' jurisdiction.? Yet, so zealous were the admirals and their deputies (judges) in their "bold bid for businessns that they encroached upon the privileges of the seaports9 and the jurisdiction of common law courts.1° In an effort to curb their expansion and resist the proliferation of their Civil Law Codes,ll a series of statutes restricted their jurisdiction to activities seaward of the coastline.12 In 1389 it was decreed that the admirals "shall not meddle from henceforth of anything done in the realm, but only of a thing done upon the sea".13 In 1391, it was enacted "that of all manner of contracts, pleas and quarrels, and all other things arising within the bodies of the counties, as well as by land as by water and also of wreck of the sea, the Admiral's Courts shall have no manner of cognizance, power nor jurisdiction."14 Nevertheless, the admiral was granted a criminal jurisdiction, concurrent with common law, over "the death of a man and of mayhem done in great ships, being and hovering in the main stream of great rivers, only beneath the bridges of the same rivers nigh to the sea, and in none other places of the same rivers."l6 Continued abuse prompted the Commons to petition against the admiraP6 and in 1400 a statute was passed entitling a defendant, who was improperly subjected to admiralty jurisdiction, to "recover his double damages against the pursuant; and the same pursuant shall incur the pain of ten pounds to the King for the pursuit so made, if he be attained."17 Criminal Jurisdiction In the 15th century, the business of the Admiral's judges was centralized enough to speak of a Court of Admiraltyls and regular enough for civilians practising in the Court to form a collegiate foundation in London, later 6 Mears, op. cit. 329. 7 Marsden, op. cit. I, xlv-xlvi. 8 W. I. V. Windeyer, Lectures on Legal History (2nd ed. rev. Sydney, Law Book CO., 1957) 177. 0 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1966) Vol. I, 548. 10 Laing, op. cit. 169-70. 11 Robertson, op. cit. 43. 12 See E. S. Roscoe, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice (1920) 6-8. 13 13 Rich. 11, c. 5 (1389). 14 15 Rich. 11, c. 3 (1391). 15 Ibid. 16 Mears, op. cit. 335; Roscoe, op. cit. 8. 17 2 Hen. IV, c. 11 (1400). 1s W. Senior, "Admiralty Matters in the Fifteenth Century" (1919) 35 L.Q.R. 290; Marsden, op. cit. I, li-lvi. Admiralty Jurisdiction 93 to be called the College of Doctors of Law.ls Procedure was modelled on the Civil Law trial by witnesses whose numerical strength influenced the outcome of the case.m Unless the accused confessed his crime, no capital conviction could be secured without the supporting evidence of two witnesses. However, for fair reasons or foul, witnesses were frequently unavailable to testify about offences committed on board ship.a Dissatisfied with the absence of jury presentment and with the reputed practice of extracting confessions by torture, a 1536 statute required "all treasons, felonies, robberies, murders and confederacies" committed within Admiralty jurisdiction to be tried according to the common law by commissioners appointed by the King.= Although the formal division of jurisdictions was preservedB the criminal jurisprudence of Admiralty was thereafter eclipsed by the common law, because common lawyers were appointed as commissioners^ and the common law was applied to British ships at sea.% By contrast, Admiralty's civil jurisdiction was to survive. However, two centuries of attrition were to reduce it to a skeleton of its Tudor importance. Civil Jurisdiction In the climate of expanding international trade, the High Court of Admiralty proved to be a convenient forum for 16th century merchant^.^^ Despite the 14th century legislative restraints, the Court entertained a wide range of mercantile and maritime disputes involving bills of exchange, charter parties, insurance, general average, damage to cargo, freight, negligent navigation, unseaworthiness, collision and even marriage con- tracts and wills made abroad.27 With such prestigious litigation at stake, common law courts set about undermining Admiralty's jurisdiction and capturing its business.= Yet, the curial competition was more than a contest between the Common and Civil Law systems. To Sir Edward Coke, when he assumed office as Chief Justicezg (of Common Pleas in 1606 and l9 F. L. Wiswall, The Development of Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice since 1880 (Cambridge University Press, 1970) Ch. 3. T. E. Scrutton, "Roman Law Influence in Admiralty" in Select Essays in Anglo- American Legal History (1968) I, 208, 230 et seq. 4 Blackstone, Ch. 19, 5. * 28 Hen. VIII, c. 15 (1536). 23 See Lacyes Case (1582) 1 Leon 270; 74 E.R. 246; The Case of the Admiralty (1610) 13 Co. Rep. 51; 77 E.R. 1461. 24 Holdsworth, op. cit. I, 551. 26 See R. v. Allen (1837) 1 Mood. C.C. 494; 168 E.R. 1357; R. V. Serva (1845) 1 Den. 104; 169 E.R. 169; R. v. Anderson (1868) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 161; R. v. Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. D. 63. 26 A. K. R. Kiralfy, Potter's Historical Introduction to English Law (4th ed. London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1962) 199; Holdsworth, op. cit. I, 555. n Marsden, op. cit. I, lxvii. 28 E. F. Ryan, "Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien" (1968) 7 western Ont. L. Rev. 173, 176; G. F. Steckley, "Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution" (1978) 22 A.J. Legal History 137. " For Coke's life in public office and political involvement, see C. D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne (Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1957); C. W. James, Chief Justice Coke (London, Country Life, 1929). 94 Monash University Law Review [VOL.6, DEC.'791 King's Bench in 1613) it represented the struggle for judicial supremacy of Parliamentary courts over Conciliar courts.30 The Admiralty Court of the 16th century had exceeded its statutory jurisdiction in preference for the wider powers conferred on the Admiral by the King in C~uncil.~~The 1391 statute had excluded Admiralty from all "things rising within the bodies of the countiesW32although in 1540 its jurisdiction was extended to the negligent handling of cargo and delay in prosecution of the voyage.= However, Crown patents appointing a succession of Lords High Admiral conferred jurisdiction over all contracts made beyond the sea, or contracted in England for performance beyond the sea, and matters occurring on the rivers in the realm from the first bridges to the sea.34 Particularly irksome to Coke was the inclusion in the patents of iwn obstmte clauses which purported to validate the Admiral's authority, notwithstanding any statutes to the contrary.36 Dissatisfied litigants challenged Admiralty's jurisdiction long before Coke's elevation to the bench. Extant records disclose applications for writs of supersedeas and certiorari to review proceedings in Admiralt~.~~ However, achieving only moderate success in Chan~ery?~this procedure was superseded in the mid-16th century by the more popular application for prohibition to an amenable King's Bench.= On the other hand, there were instances of litigants retaliating by removing plaints from local and common law courts to Admiralty.S9 Nevertheless, common law orders to restrain proceedings so concerned the Admiral that in 1570 he complained to Elizabeth I who instructed the sheriffs in London to forebear from intermeddling with causes arising out of contracts upon and beyond the seas.@ In 1575, an agreement was alleged to have been reached among 80 S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C
    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (c. 51)i, ii An Act to make new provision with respect to public records and the Public Record Office, and for connected purposes. [23rd July 1958] General responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for public records. 1. - (1) The direction of the Public Record Office shall be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall be generally responsible for the execution of this Act and shall supervise the care and preservation of public records. (2) There shall be an Advisory Council on Public Records to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office. The Master of the Rolls shall be chairman of the said Council and the remaining members of the Council shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on such terms as he may specify. [(2A) The matters on which the Advisory Council on Public Records may advise the Lord Chancellor include matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.iii] (3) The Lord Chancellor shall in every year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the work of the Public Record Office, which shall include any report made to him by the Advisory Council on Public Records.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Reform in England
    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • For Reference Use Only
    b559M Ui,,,i,%'ERSjTY OFGRLENYSa ' LýERARY FORREFERENCE USEONLY UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH GREENWICH MARITIME INSTITUTE THE SEAFARER, PIRACY AND THE LAW A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH P. G. Widd BSc, MA Master Mariner A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Greenwich May 2008 Vol V\j UINIv tiTY OFGREENWICH LIBRARY FORRFFFRFPICF ! 1SF ÖNl Y ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to the following: ProfessorA. D. Couper for much helpful "pilotage" advice, keeping this thesis on course. P. Mukundan of the International Maritime Bureau for answering my questions with good humour and supplying me with the piracy reports. Brigadier(Retd) B. A. H. Parritt CBE for allowing me to share in small measure his expertise on security. III ABSTRACT been Piracy at seahas existed almost since voyaging began and has effectively Navy in 1stC subduedfrom time to time, principally by the Roman Imperial the and the British Navy in the 19thC. Over the past twenty five years piracy has once again been increasing such that it has now become of serious concern to the maritime bears brunt community, in particular the seafarer,who as always the of these attacks. developed from In parallel with piracy itself the laws of piracy have the Rhodian Laws through Roman Law, post Treaty of Westphalia Law both British and Convention American until today the Law of Piracy is embodied in the United Nations be of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. Under this Law piracy can only committed on the high seasand with UNCLOS increasing the limit of the territorial seafrom 3m1.to 12ml.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on Judicial
    Chapter 3 : The British Experience 3.01 In the Mason Report, the case of Britain is presented as one of the jurisdictions where there is an absolute prohibition against reduction of judicial remuneration. 1 The existing British system of determination of judicial remuneration and the latest review on judicial salaries have also been discussed in the Mason Report. On the issue of reduction of remuneration in the United Kingdom, the following passages are relevant. 3.12 In 1760 the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act2 made explicit what may have been implicit in the Act of Settlement. It secured the payment of the judges’ salaries without reduction so long as the judge’s commission continued and remained in force. The Act did not apply to colonial judges. 3.14 More recently, the Courts Act 1971 and the Supreme Court Act 1981, ss 12(1) and (3), have expressly provided that the salaries of Circuit Judges and Supreme Court Judges respectively “may be increased but not reduced”. 3.02 The 1760 Act is also referred to in the context of the discussion of the Australian position in the Mason Report – 3.28 Section 40 of the Constitution Act 1855 (NSW) provided for judicial remuneration but reverted to the earlier wording of the Commissions and Salaries of Judges Act 1760 (Imp). It provided that salaries fixed by Act of Parliament shall be paid and payable to every judge for the time being so long as their commissions should continue and remain in force. No express reference was made to the prohibition of the diminution of a judge’s salary.
    [Show full text]
  • Courts Act 1971
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/10/1992. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Courts Act 1971. (See end of Document for details) Courts Act 1971 1971 CHAPTER 23 An Act to make further provision as respects the Supreme Court and county courts, judges and juries, to establish a Crown Court as part of the Supreme Court to try indictments and exercise certain other jurisdiction, to abolish courts of assize and certain other courts and to deal with their jurisdiction and other consequential matters, and to amend in other respects the law about courts and court proceedings. [12th May 1971] Extent Information E1 For extent see s. 59(5)(6)(7). Commencement Information I1 Act not in force at Royal Assent see s. 59(2); Act wholly in force at 1. 1. 1972. PART I INTRODUCTORY [F11 The Supreme Court. (1) The Supreme Court shall consist of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, together with the Crown Court established by this Act. (2) All courts of assize are hereby abolished, and Commissions, whether ordinary or special, to hold any court of assize shall not be issued.] Textual Amendments F1 Pts. I and II (ss. 1–15) repealed (E.W.) by Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54, SIF 37), s. 152(4), Sch. 7 2 Courts Act 1971 (c. 23) Part II – The Crown Court Document Generated: 2021-04-11 Status: Point in time view as at 01/10/1992. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Courts Act 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision 17Th Report (SLC 193; LC 285)
    [Coat of Arms] The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 285) (SCOT LAW COM No 193) STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers December 2003 Cm 6070 SE/2003/313 £xx.xx The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 17 November 2003. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX 1: DRAFT
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Courts Act 1981, Part I Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 27 June 2021
    Changes to legislation: Senior Courts Act 1981, Part I is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 27 June 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Senior Courts Act 1981 1981 CHAPTER 54 PART I CONSTITUTION OF [F1SENIOR COURTS] Textual Amendments F1 Words in Pt. 1 heading substituted (1.10.2009) by Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4), ss. 59, 148, Sch. 11 para. 26(1); S.I. 2009/1604, art. 2(d) The [F2Senior Courts] Textual Amendments F2 Words in s. 1 cross-heading substituted (1.10.2009) by Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4), ss. 59, 148, Sch. 11 para. 26(1); S.I. 2009/1604, art. 2(d) 1 The [F3Senior Courts]. (1) The [F3Senior Courts] of England and Wales shall consist of the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Justice and the Crown Court, each having such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by or under this or any other Act. F4(2) . Textual Amendments F3 Words in s. 1 and side-note substituted (1.10.2009) by Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4), ss. 59, 148, Sch. 11 para. 26(1); S.I. 2009/1604, art. 2(d) F4 S 1(2) repealed (3.4.2006) by Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4), ss. 7(5), 148(1), Sch. 18 Pt. 2; S.I. 2006/1014, art.
    [Show full text]
  • The High Court's Jurisdiction in Relation to Criminal
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 184 THE HIGH COURT’S JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS A Consultation Paper The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC Professor Martin Partington CBE is Special Consultant to the Law Commission responsible for housing law reform. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 1 October 2007, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 22 February 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we may attribute comments and include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Report: Draft Statute Law Repeals Bill
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 211) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 140) STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty April 1993 LONDON: HMSO E17.85 net Cm 2176 The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the Law. The Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Brooke, Chairman Mr Trevor M. Aldridge, Q.C. Mr Jack Beatson Mr Richard Buxton, Q.C. Professor Brenda Hoggett, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon. Its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Davidson, Chairman .. Dr E.M. Clive Professor P.N. Love, C.B.E. Sheriff I.D.Macphail, Q.C. Mr W.A. Nimmo Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr K.F. Barclay. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. .. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill To the Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Right Honourable the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate. In pursuance of section 3(l)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965, we have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1 and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Piracy Law a Comparative Study Between India and United Kingdom
    International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1 ISSN 2289-1552 2012 SEA PIRACY LAW A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM Abishek Murthy School of Law Christ University, Bangalore, India. 1. INTERNATIONAL SEA PIRACY 1.1 Piracy “An act of boarding or attempting to board any ship with the intent to commit theft or any other crime and with the intent or capability to use force in the furtherance of that act”1. Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons travelling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents. Piracy is the name of a specific crime under customary international law and also the name of a number of crimes under the municipal law of a number of States. It is distinguished from privateering, which is authorized by national authorities and therefore a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors. Privateering is considered commerce raiding, and was outlawed by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) for signatories to those treaties. Those who engage in acts of piracy are called pirates. Historically, offenders have usually been apprehended by military personnel and tried by military tribunals. In the 21st century, the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice.2 1.2 Location & Extent of Piracy Piracy is considered a serious problem by governments and the shipping industry alike.
    [Show full text]
  • ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference
    ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference I, NEIL ANTHONY BROWN, the Minister of State for Communications, acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, HAVING REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING: (a) that the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is at present still exercised pursuant to the United Kingdom Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; (b) that the Constitution enables the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and other federal courts in matters of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to make laws investing any court of a State or Territory with such jurisdiction; and (c) the other countries, including Canada and New Zealand, to which the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 previously applied, have enacted their own Admiralty legislation in a revised and updated form; HEREBY REFER to the Law Reform Commission, for INQUIRY, REVIEW and REPORT thereon to the Attorney-General, all aspects of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia, and REQUEST the Law Reform Commission, in considering this reference, (a) to have regard to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand dated 22 April 1982 on Admiralty Jurisdiction in Australia, and (b) to take note of the draft Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill set out as Appendix “A” to that Report, and, in particular, to (i) make recommendations on the provisions to be included in an Australian Admiralty Act; (ii) consider whether any, and
    [Show full text]