IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

New Zealand Mail, 27 August 1902, Page 12

IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.

Mr Jollicoe moved in the Supreme Court on The 19th inst. to quash the indictment against a prisoner named John Hinde, for forgery and fraud under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in the City of London on the 17th January. Counsel contended that as the entire offence was alleged to have been committed beyond the seas, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused on that indictment. He submitted that all crime was local, and that the jurisdiction over crime belonged to the country wherein it was committed. It might be contended by the Crown that inasmuch as the offence was against the Merchant Shipping Act, that statute conferred some jurisdiction upon the Courts'of this colony to try and punish in the event of an offender being found within the colony. Counsel quoted sections 684 and 711 of the. Act, which, he said, at first sight gave colour to the suggestion, but the history of the Act should be considered, and made it clear that no such jurisdiction was 'conferred. .V *' j: ■

His Honor said he would not quash the inc..ctment, but would reserve the point for the Court of Appeal. Air Gully, Crown Prosecutor, observed that it was quite clear there was some doubt, and he would be glad to have the point decided To his mind the proper course was that the prisoner should first be arraigned, and then let Mr Jellicoe plead to the jurisdiction. Air Jellicoe considered that such a course would be invoking an almost obsolete practice. Wliy plead if there was no jurisdiction? It might be prejudicial to the prisoner if he were afterwards tried in England. He asked to have the case allowed to stand until next sittings, and have the question of jurisdiction settled by the Court of Appeal in the meantime.

The prisoner was then formally arraigned, and Air Jellicoe moved to have the indictment quashed for the reasons already given

His Honor refused to quash the indictment, but said bo would tgscitb tb© question of law for the Court of Appeal, ail mi tb© case to next sittings Ihe necessary motions having been formally made, ah order was made accordingly.