RENNELL'S CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5561, 24 January 1879, Page 2

RENNELL'S CASE.

The following abstract of the arguments in this case, when Eennell was brought before the Supreme Court on January 17th, on writ of habeas corpus, is taken from an article which appeared in the Auckland Star of January 20th, and was forwarded to us, per Press Agency, on the same evening : Thomas Eennell, charged with the murder of Captain. Moller at Butaritari, was brought before the Supreme Court on Friday. Mr. Tyler then, on behalf of the Crown, applied to amend the gaoler’s return by adding another warrant. The second warrant was similar to the first, and bore the same date ; but instead of “ Her Majesty’s pleasure,” there was substituted “until he can be sent back to the colony of Fiji,” the offence having been committed within the jurisdiction of such colony. It was admittedby the Grown in the argument that the Foreign Offenders’ Act had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the offence was not committed in any of the Australian colonies, to which that Act was limited, nor did the Crown seek to justify his detention by virtue of 38 and 39 Victoria, or by reason of any such High Commissioner having been appointed under that Act. Mr. Hesketh put the matter in a nutshell when he said the whole question was this : Has her Majesty, by common law, jurisdiction over her subjects in any part of the world, and can that jurisdiction be exercised by the Courts in any part of her Majesty’s dominions in which a prisoner may be found t He submitted that the Queen had no such power by common law, and that whatever power and jurisdiction she had over her subjects she derived from the numerous statutes passed by the Imperial Parliament. These he criticised at length, and argued that specific statutes were necessary, and that they were quite inconsistent with the contention that the Queen had full power by common law without the existence of any special statutes, nor could it be said in any sense that these statutes only provided machinery for exercising the jurisdiction possessed by the Queen at common law. In support of this, he quoted from Eoscoe’s Criminal Evidence, p. 250. Mr. Tyler, on

the other hand, contended that British subjects are amenable to the British law wherever they may go or live, and that they are bo by virtue of the common law. lie argued that it was clear that had this man been found in 'England he could have been tried for the offence by virtue of certain existing statutes; that Courts in this colony have the same power and jurisdiction in all cases as her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster, and that by, section 48, J.P. Act 1866, if an indictment could be preferred here against a prisoner, full power was given to deal with him. Mr. Tyler quoted a case, Regina v. Dodd, New Zealand Court of Appeal, 1874, where Mr. Justice Chapman stated that the jurisdiction of colonial Courts has been extended to offences committed in foreign lands. Mr. Hesketh argued the prisoner could have been tried iu England if found there, because the statute referred to contains the word “ England,” whereas in the present case the prisoner was brought up in New Zealaud. Mr. Justice Gillies having beard lengthy arguments, of which the above is a digest, said that in a question of such importance, and one which had never been presented iu its precise form to any Court, he felt justified in detaining the prisoner further in custody until Wednesday, when judgment iu the case would be given.