REG. v. CARR AND 1882. securities upon the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; the second count charged that they being British subjects within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, upon the British ship Avalon, then being in a certain foreign port, to wit, the port of Rotterdam, stole the same securities; Admiralty- the third count charged them with larceny of these securities Jurisdiction. within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court; the fourth count charged them with receiving the same securities within. the jurisdiction of that court, well knowing them to have been stolen; and the fifth and sixth counts respectively charged them with having been accessories after the fact to the theft and the receiving respectively of the same securities by persons unknown. A copy of the abstract of the indictment was set out in the schedule to this case, and the indictment may be referred to as a part thereof. I was asked by the counsel for the prisoner Wilson to quash the second count of the indictment; but it was suggested by Sir H. Giffard, Q.C., who appeared for the prisoner Carr, that the better course would be that the prisoners should refuse to plead, and I should direct pleas of not guilty to be entered, and this was accordingly done. The material facts proved were as follows: 1. On the 12th day of July last the above-mentioned Egyptian Preference Stock and Illinois Bonds were made up by Messrs. Kelker and Co., bankers at Amstersdam, into a parcel which was marked outside "value 501.," and was addressed to Messrs. Mercia, Backhouse, and Co., in London. The Unified Stock was made up into another parcel similar to the first, except that it was marked outside as "value 1001." These parcels were of a class known as "valued parcels." They were traced clearly from Amsterdam to Rotterdam, to the office of Messrs. Pieters and Co., the agents there of the Great Eastern Railway Company, on whose behalf they were received. 2. There was evidence that these two parcels were (with two others) taken from Pieters and Co.'s office by a man employed by them for that purpose, and placed by him on board the steamship Avalon, about half-past five p.m. on the same 12th July. 3. The Avalon is a British vessel, registered at Harwich, and sailing under the British flag. She is about 240 feet in length, with a gross tonnage of 670 tons; and draws about ten feet six inches of water when loaded. She is the property of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and is regularly employed by them in their trade between Harwich and Rotterdam. On the evening in question she was lying in the river Maas, at Rotterdam, about twenty or thirty feet (the captain also described it as "about the breadth of the Court ") from the quay, and against a "dolphin," a structure of piles for the use of the company's ships only, projecting from the quay for the purpose of keeping vessels off the quay. She was moored to the quay in the usual manner. REG. 2. CARR AND 1882. 4. The place where the Avalon was lying was in the open There is not any river, sixteen or eighteen miles from the sea. bridge across the river between that point and the sea. The tide ebbs and flows there, and for many miles further up the river. The place where the Avalon was lying at the dolphin is never dry, and that vessel would not touch the ground there at Admiraltylow water. The Admiralty chart showing the river Maas from Jurisdiction. Rotterdam to the sea was put in evidence at the suggestion of the counsel for the prisoners, and was proved by the captain of the Avalon to be correct. It is marked J.T.H. 1. 5. While the Avalon was lying at the dolphin, as above described, persons were allowed to pass backwards and forwards between her and the shore without hindrance. 6. The Avalon sailed for England the same evening, about six o'clock, and arrived at Harwich the following morning. Upon her arrival the two valued parcels above-mentioned (and one of the other parcels) were at once missed, and upon inquiry it was found that they had been stolen. The parcel containing the Unified Stock and the third parcel have never since been traced; but the parcel containing the Egyptian Preference Stock and the Illinois Bonds was found in the prisoners' possession on the 1st Aug. 7. The prisoners are British subjects. 8. It was contended for the prisoners that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find them guilty upon the counts charging them with stealing the securities. I was of that opinion, and so directed the jury, and the prisoners were accordingly acquitted upon those counts. 9. It was also contended for the prisoners that unless the jury found that the securities had been stolen from on board the Avalon the prisoners must be acquitted, as, if they had been stolen after leaving Pieters and Co.'s office, and before reaching the ship, the offence of stealing them was one which this court had not jurisdiction to try, and therefore the prisoners could not be tried here for receiving, according to the case of Reg. v. John Carr (a) (one of these prisoners), reported in vol. lxxxvii., p. 46, (a) REG. v. JOHN CARR. (Central Criminal Court. Before Mr. Justice Denman. November 22nd, 1877.) John Carr was indicted for stealing 168 bonds of the Peruvian Government, the property of Lionel Cohen and others; second count, for feloniously receiving the same. There were other counts charging him as an accessory before and after the fact. The Solicitor-General and Poland were counsel for the prosecution, and Besley and Grain for the defence. The bonds in question, on the 2nd June 1877, were transmitted by the prosecutors to a customer in Paris. They were traced safely as far as Calais, and were stolen from the train after leaving that place. On the 4th of September the prisoner was found dealing with them in London, and the question arose as to the jurisdiction of this court to try the case, the robbery having been committed in France. The Solicitor-General submitted that the prosecutors never having parted with REG. v. CARR AND WILSON. 1882. of the Sessions Papers at the Central Criminal Court, and the cases there cited. I took this view and directed the jury that, unless they were satisfied that the securities had been taken from the Avalon, they must acquit the prisoners. They found both the prisoners guilty. Admiralty10. I was not asked to leave, and did not leave, any question Jurisdiction. to the jury whether the securities were stolen before or after the Avalon commenced her voyage from Rotterdam. There was no evidence upon which the jury could have found that the theft occurred after the voyage began; the evidence rather pointed to its having occurred before she sailed. 11. It was further argued on the prisoners' behalf that, even if the securities had been stolen from the Avalon, there was nothing to show that they had been taken from a British subject, and, therefore, the case did not come within the Acts 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 267, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21, or 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 11, and the thief was amenable to the law in Holland only; and, further, that the case of Reg. v. Anderson (L. Rep. 1 Cr. Cas. Res. 161; 11 Cox C. C. 198) was no authority to the contrary, inasmuch as the prisoner in that case, though a foreigner, was one of the crew of a British vessel, and therefore owed allegiance to the law of England, and upon that ground could be tried here. The counsel of the Crown did not dispute that the offender might be tried in Holland, but insisted that he might be tried here also. 12. I expressed my opinion that if the Avalon had, at the time when the securities were stolen, been sailing up or down the river Maas, the person who took them, whether an Englishman or a foreigner, could clearly have been tried here, upon the authority of Reg. v. Anderson; that the law is the same, whether their property in the bonds they were still under the protection of the law, and that the subsequent possession of the bonds in this country was sufficiently recent to enable the jury to find a verdict of larceny against a person who was dishonestly dealing with them here. The decision in Rex v. Prowse (1 Moo. C. C. 349) was certainly opposed to this view, but no reasons were given for that judgment, and a doubt as to the soundness of the decision was expresed by Parke, B. in Reg. v. Madge (9 Car. & P. 29.) The case of Reg. v. Debrueill (11 Cox C. C. 207) was referred to. As to the counts charging the prisoner with receiving and also as an accessory, the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 94 contemplated a case of this kind where the original offence was committed abroad. Besley relied on the decision in Rex v. Prowse (ubi sup.) and Reg. v. Hogetoran (Cent. Crim. Court Sess. Paper, vol. 79, p. 268) and Reg. v. Nadal (84 ̊C. C. Č. Sess. Paper, p. 295). DENMAN J.-There can be no doubt that this was a larceny fully completed in France. I do not at all say that it might not be a very reasonable thing that any one afterwards dealing here with property so stolen might make cogent evidence of having received them knowing them to have been stolen, just as much as if they had been stolen in England; but it appears to me that the point has been too solemnly decided for me to give the go-by to those decisions. It has been solemnly decided and acted upon so often that there is no jurisdiction in England to try a case where the stealing has been committed abroad, either against the principal or the accessory, that I have nothing to do but to act upon those decisions and to direct an acquittal in this case. I entertain no doubt that the case of Rex v. Prowse (ubi sup.) is directly in point, and Reg. v. Madge (ubi sup.) fortifies it to the extent of recognising and acting upon it. Debrueill's case also decides that a conviction of receiving under similar circumstances could not be sustained. The prisoner must therefore be acquitted. REG. CARR AND 1882. the ship be anchored or sailing, as appears from the cases of Rex v. Jemot and Rex v. Allen (7 Car. & P. 664; 1 Moody's Cr. Cas. 494), where the vessels were lying in port, and which cases are referred to by Lord Blackburn with approval in Reg. v. Anderson; and that it could not make any legal difference whether the vessel was made fast to the bottom of the river by Admiraltyanchor and cable, or to the side of the river by ropes from the Jurisdiction. quay. I also expressed my opinion that, although the fact that the prisoner in Reg. v. Anderson was one of the crew was referred to more than once in the judgment of Bovill, C.J., it was not mentioned by any of the other judges, and was not the ground of the decision; and that it made no difference in the present case whether the securities stolen from the Avalon were taken by one of the crew or passengers, or by a stranger from the shore. 13. I directed the jury accordingly, telling them that if they came to the conclusion that the securities were taken from the ship, the taking them was an offence which could be tried here; and that, if so, the prisoners could now be tried here for receiving, and could be found guilty of that offence, if the jury thought the facts proved warranted such a finding. I stated at the same time that I should, if necessary, reserve the point for the consideration of this court. 14. With respect to the receiving, no difficulty of law arose, and no point was reserved. 15. The jury found both prisoners guilty upon the fourth count. I postponed passing sentence until the opinion of the court is given; and the prisoners remain in custody. The question upon which I desire the opinion of this Court is, whether, under these circumstances, there was any jurisdiction to try the prisoners at the Old Bailey for the offence of which they have been found guilty. If answered in the affirmative, the conviction is to stand. If otherwise, the conviction is to be quashed; but the prisoners are to remain in custody to be tried upon another indictment, on which a true bill against them has been found by the grand jury. FORD NORTH. Sir H. Giffard, Q.C. (Tickell with him) for the prisoner Carr, and E. Clarke, Q.C. (Grain with him) for the prisoner Wilson.The Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to try the prisoners, the offence not having been committed within the Admiralty jurisdiction. It is immaterial that the prisoners were British subjects, as jurisdiction over the offence is not given by the nationality of the prisoners, but must exist independently thereof. The prisoners were convicted of receiving stolen bonds, and without the court had jurisdiction over the thief it had none over the receiver. There is no evidence as to the person who stole the bonds, and it is consistent with the facts that the thief may have been a Dutchman. On the case as stated it must be taken that the bonds were stolen from the vessel while it was REG. v. CARR AND 1882. moored to the wharf at Rotterdam. The question is whether the Dutch courts had not exclusive jurisdiction to try the prisoners? It is submitted that they alone had jurisdiction. The ship was attached to the shore by ropes, and became, as it were, part of the shore of the country to which it was attached. When the Admiralty ship was moored to the quay the English flag was lowered, and Jurisdiction. the law then governing the ship was the law of Holland. There is no authority that decides that a foreigner on board a vessel at such a place and not being one of the crew and not claiming the protection of the flag of the vessel subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the country to which the vessel belongs. In Reg. v. Anderson (L. Rep. 1 C. Cas. Res. 161; 11 Cox. C. C. 198), Bovill, C.J., Channell, B., and Blackburn, J., seem to place reliance on the fact that the prisoner was one of the crew of the vessel. This is a new point not hitherto decided. What is the condition of a vessel in a river in a foreign country moored to the shore? It is submitted that the local and municipal authorities have exclusive jurisdiction over offences committed upon it whilst so moored. It Poland (Goodrich with him) for the prosecution.-It is submitted that the prisoners were properly tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. The question depends not on the character of the person committing the offence, but on the character of the ship. At the time the bonds were stolen the ship was within the Admiralty jurisdiction. was a vessel trading from Harwich to Rotterdam, and when the theft was committed was lying in a tidal river where great ships go, and was in every sense floating within a place where the admiral had jurisdiction: (The United States v. Hamilton, 1 Mason (Amer. Rep.) 152.) Even if the theft was committed by a Dutchman, the Admiral had jurisdiction over it. There can be no distinction between a seaman, one of the crew, and a stranger who goes on board to do a criminal act; being on board an English vessel he puts himself within the jurisdiction of the English law, the ship being considered, as it were, part of the English territory. The test of the Admiral's jurisdiction has always been whether the ship was upon the high seas or lying in a river where the tide ebbs and flows and where great ships go. The American reports of Thomas v. Lane (2 Sumner 1), and The United States v. Coombes (12 Peters 74) were then referred to. In Reg. v. Allen (1 Moo. C. C. 494) it was held that the Admiralty had jurisdiction over a larceny in a vessel lying in a Chinese river, although there was no evidence as to the tide flowing where the vessel lay. In Rex. v. Jemot (MSS. 1812), as appears from the report in the Times newspaper 29th Feb. 1812), it was held that the Admiral had jurisdiction over a larceny of 40,000 dollars from a British ship while lying in the harbour of St. Jago, in Cuba. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to death. The case of Reg. v. Keane (2 Ex. Div. 82) was then cited. The principle on which Reg v. Anderson (ubi sup.) was decided is applicable |