Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    R V Anderson

    Uploaded by

    Mariline Lee
    This document discusses the jurisdiction of criminal courts over maritime torts and crimes committed at sea. It examines the 1868 English case R v Anderson, where an American seaman was convicted of manslaughter in an English court for a crime committed on a British-flagged ship in French territory. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that under general law, independent of statute, the offense was subject to English criminal jurisdiction because it occurred on a British vessel, regardless of whether the vessel was within foreign ports or waters at the time of the offense. The crime was considered to have been committed within both French and British territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    R V Anderson

    Uploaded by

    Mariline Lee
    1K views1 page
    This document discusses the jurisdiction of criminal courts over maritime torts and crimes committed at sea. It examines the 1868 English case R v Anderson, where an American seaman was convicted of manslaughter in an English court for a crime committed on a British-flagged ship in French territory. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that under general law, independent of statute, the offense was subject to English criminal jurisdiction because it occurred on a British vessel, regardless of whether the vessel was within foreign ports or waters at the time of the offense. The crime was considered to have been committed within both French and British territory.

    Original Title

    R v Anderson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the jurisdiction of criminal courts over maritime torts and crimes committed at sea. It examines the 1868 English case R v Anderson, where an American seaman was convicted of manslaughter in an English court for a crime committed on a British-flagged ship in French territory. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that under general law, independent of statute, the offense was subject to English criminal jurisdiction because it occurred on a British vessel, regardless of whether the vessel was within foreign ports or waters at the time of the offense. The crime was considered to have been committed within both French and British territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    R V Anderson

    Uploaded by

    Mariline Lee
    This document discusses the jurisdiction of criminal courts over maritime torts and crimes committed at sea. It examines the 1868 English case R v Anderson, where an American seaman was convicted of manslaughter in an English court for a crime committed on a British-flagged ship in French territory. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that under general law, independent of statute, the offense was subject to English criminal jurisdiction because it occurred on a British vessel, regardless of whether the vessel was within foreign ports or waters at the time of the offense. The crime was considered to have been committed within both French and British territory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Maritime torts/crimes at sea

    Place of commission a consistent approach?

    A tort (e.g. trespass to the person) committed on a forum flag ship in the territorial or
    internal waters of a foreign country is treated for private international law purposes
    (jurisdiction and choice of law) as a tort committed in the foreign country. However, if the
    tort also is a crime (e.g. manslaughter), the criminal courts of the forum will have common
    law jurisdiction in respect of the offence.
    R v Anderson
    (1868) 11 Cox Crim Cases 198 (Court of Criminal Appeal, England)
    Background
    James Anderson, a United States national, was convicted of manslaughter in the Central
    Criminal Court, England. The offence was committed on a British flag ship in French
    territory, namely 300 yards from shore in a tidal river leading from the open sea to the port of
    Bordeaux. At the time of the offence the ship was about 45 miles up-river.
    The question reserved for the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the Central Criminal
    Court had jurisdiction in respect of the offence.
    Disposition
    Under general law, independent of statute, the offence was subject to English criminal
    jurisdiction.
    BOVILL CJ. [204] There is no doubt that the place where the offence was committed was
    within the territory of France, and that the prisoner was therefore subject to the laws of
    France, which the local authorities of that realm might have enforced if so minded; but at the
    same time, in point of law, the offence was also committed within British territory, for the
    prisoner was a seaman on board a merchant vessel, which, as to her crew and master, must be
    taken to have been at the time under the protection of the British flag, and, therefore, also
    amenable to the provisions of the British law.
    [205] Independently of statute, the general law is sufficient to determine this case. Here
    the offence was committed on board a British vessel by one of the crew, and it makes no
    difference whether the vessel was within a foreign port or not. If the offence had been
    committed on the high seas it is clear that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the
    Admiralty, and the Central Criminal Court has now the same extent of jurisdiction. Does it
    make any difference because the vessel was in the river Garonne half-way between the sea
    and the head of the river? The place where the offence was committed was in a navigable
    part of the river where the tide ebbs and flows . An offence committed at such a place,
    according to the authorities, is within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and it is the same as if the
    offence had been committed on the high seas. On the whole I come to the conclusion that the
    prisoner was amenable to the British law, and that the conviction was right.
    [Channell B, Byles, Blackburn and Lush JJ, in separate judgments, agreed with Bovill CJ.]
    Conviction affirmed
    ___________________________________

    F:RA/PIL02/R v Anderson:gb

    You might also like