Jurisdiction of skipper

[tcm]

Stubate correctly points out that i was being flippant before with his death at sea post. Apologies.

Ok. Now, what exactl;y are the limits of jurisdiction of the skipper, of the "authorities" (police etc) over the ship.

Eg if you murder someone on your boat in the middle of the atlantic, under which law and where do you (if you were skipper) get prosecuted. I have only ever heard of this being prosecuted by regylations such as those in Navy, Mercant shipping or whatever.

More realistically, are normal crimes of theft and so on valid at sea, and where? in the solent, maybe. But outisde national waters (22miles?)

No, I'm not planning anything, but would like to know what's what.

 

[jimi]

Captain Sensible

Are we allowed to be facetious on this thread or have we got to be sensible?

 

[clyst]

Yep! All good points . This subject in often "brushed under the carpet" . I'v often wondered what sort of interogation one would receive if only two on board and one fell OB .Was he pushed or did he fall??? Maybe someone who has first hand knowledge whether on the receiving end or professional capacity can comment . I'm not planning any thing 'onest gov !!
Cheers
Terry

 

[david_e]

Assume that we are talking leisure craft. I would have thought the port where the boat operates out of would be a starting point together with the police from the dead/missing person's home or resident country would be the other.

So if you took a someone, lets call him Mr Soprano, out for a test drive in your boat and only Mr Soprano came back, in the first instance it is most likley that the Old Bill would be the first to investigate. They in turn would contact the Italian police who after dilligent Octopus type investigation would aprehend Mr Soprano and lock him up their nick.

If on the other hand you were out with Coliholic, and he 'fell' over the side into the med and never surfaced no doubt the Old Bill would lock you up.

This is just summosing, am at a party over the weekend with my lawyer/golfing pal so will ask him.

Are you doing anything interesting?

 

[jimi]

My guess is :

Don't matter whether leisure or not would suspect if in national waters then cut & dried (unless a warship), if international then the nationality of the vessel or the victim rules .. just guessing though

 

[tillergirl]

There are lawyers who specialise in issues of jurisdiction so I doubt you will get a definite answer. It wouldn't be in their interests would it? In International Waters, the only applicable law would seem to me to be that of flag of the vessel. So an offence committed on board would be against the law of that country. All sorts of laws now exist, however, to allow international action for example against drug smuggling so depending upon the crime, action could be taken against an offender when they land at a foreign port. If I remember correctly the British Courts can try anbody for the murder of British Subjects even if the crime is committed outside the UK.

As to the right of the police to enter your vessel, consider your vessel to be like your home. Police have certain powers to enter property without a warrant and in certain conditions can apply for a warrant. It would be no different with your yacht. Now if you had a foreign flag? There was a terribly embarrassing case for HM Customs a few years back against some this country's worst (I better say allegedly) drug smugglers where they searched a vessel with a foreign flag at Funchal in Madiera. They were unable to satisfy the Judge that they had permission from the authorities of the foreign flag and so tried to argue that they had the right to search the vessel as it was 'off the coast of the United Kingdom' (for which they do have powers). The Judge got very cross with the Customs' lawyer when she tried to argue Madiera was off the coast of the UK and threw out the case - pity really because it was a really important case. So it isn't just the police that have some rights, HM Customs have a bundle of rights to interfere, and, of course the US Coastguard are pretty proactive in searches at sea. I don't think a British Flag will get you anywhere trying to repel them.

As to limits of the jurisdiction of the skipper, I guess that's another large topic. I don't expect I could legally marry a couple but could I imprison someone, for example, tie someone up if they had become violent without being prosecuted for assault. I guess so provide I used no more force than necessary

This could be a useful subject for a YM article if it could be reduced into common sense language and short enough space.

 

[Badger]

Re: Marriage at Sea

I think you will find that a ship's captain can perform a marriage ceremony at sea but it then has to be endorsed back on land.

 

[IanPoole2]

Tie them up

Could you "tie them up" because you were the skipper, or because you are a police officer?

 

[Bergman]

Re: Easy

Exactly what SWMBO says it is - no more no less

 

[Magic_Sailor]

Excellent! I must tell mine nm

.

 

[snowleopard]

Reality check

had a discussion today on the ARC stand about the guy who died after falling overboard in mid-atlantic. he was still attached by his harness but too heavy for the crew to lift aboard. after radio discussions with rest of the family (skipper was casualty's brother) it was decided to cut him loose.

In another instance one of a pair of boat buoys drifted out to sea in the caribbean, one died and had to be put over by his friend when he began to decompose. when the survivor was rescued the dead man's relatives had him imprisoned.

 

[tillergirl]

Re: Tie them up

Well I was thinking you could do it because you were the skipper. Incidently members of the public can arrest people. The power of arrest is not as wide as a police officers, you can arrest someone you find (eg see) committing an offence. A police officer can arrest someone they think has committed an offence. But a skipper is clearly a person in authority - didn't that guy get convicted of manslaughter in the north-east because he was in charge of the vessel but neglected safety elements. He was appealing I think so he might have been aquitted on appeal. I think if a skipper can be held responsible for neglecting the safety of his or her crew then s/he clearly must have authority over the crew - ie to tell to do or not do things.

Have you noticed how complicated this is all getting?

Didn't know Badger's bit about marriages having to be confirmed on land. I had to be married twice once by the priest but because he wasn't recognised by the State, we had to be married by the Registrar in the side aisle of the Church. Probably means it'll cost me twice as much to divorce so I follow what others have said about the boss (who once said to me pointing to the lee deck as we were crossing to Calais in a bit of a blow just forward of the beam "you can get this bit of the boat out of the water NOW!) Fortunately there was another bloke on board to go up to the mast to put the second reef in.

 

[rhinorhino]

Sounds a bit too much like my day job, but here goes;

First it is not simple. Generally the English Courts are not interested in overseas events.

"Jurisdiction in Respect of Acts Performed Abroad and in Respect of Foreign Nationals

The primary basis of English criminal jurisdiction is territorial, it being the function of the English criminal courts to maintain the Queen's peace within her realm: see Board of Trade v. Owen[1957] A.C. 602, HL (per Lord Tucker atp. 625). It followed, therefore, that, statutory exceptions apart, the courts were not concerned with conduct abroad: see Cox v. Army Council[1963] A.C. 48, HL ("the whole body of the criminal law of England deals only with acts committed in England", per Viscount Simonds at p. 67). Accordingly, there is a well-established presumption in construing a statute creating an offence that, in the absence of clear words to the contrary, it is not intended to make conduct taking place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Crown an offence triable in an English court: Air India v. Wiggins (»»text),71 Cr.App.R. 213, HL (per Lord Diplock atp. 217). The presumption against a Parliamentary intention to make acts done by foreigners abroad offences triable by English courts is even stronger: ibid. and R. v. Jameson[1896] 2 Q.B. 425."

But (HOW DID YOU KNOW THERE WAS A BUT ....)

Offences on ships;

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, ss.279-281

279. Jurisdiction in relation to offences

(1) For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, any offence under this Act shall be deemed to have been committed in any place in the United Kingdom where the offender may for the time being be.

(3) The jurisdiction under subsections (1) and (2) above shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any jurisdiction or power of a court under any other enactment.

280. Jurisdiction over ships lying off coasts

(1) Where the area within which a court in any part of the United Kingdom has jurisdiction is situated on the coast of any sea or abuts on or projects into any bay, channel, lake, river or other navigable water the court shall have jurisdiction as respects offences under this Act over any vessel being on, or lying or passing off, that coast or being in or near that bay, channel, lake, river or navigable water and over all persons on board that vessel or for the time being belonging to it.

(2) The jurisdiction under subsection (1) above shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any jurisdiction or power of a court under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 or the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

281. Jurisdiction in case of offences on board ship

Where any person is charged with having committed any offence under this Act then -

(a) if he is a British citizen and is charged with having committed it -

(i) on board any United Kingdom ship on the high seas,

(ii) in any foreign port or harbour, or

(iii)on board any foreign ship to which he does not belong; or

(b) if he is not a British citizen and is charged with having committed it on board any United Kingdom ship on the high seas;

and he is found within the jurisdiction of any court in any part of the United Kingdom which would have had jurisdiction in relation to the offence if it had been committed on board a United Kingdom ship within the limits of its ordinary jurisdiction to try the offence that court shall have jurisdiction to try the offence as if it had been so committed.

"British citizen" has the same meaning as in the British Nationality Act 1981:s.313(1).

There appears to be a substantial drafting error in section 281 (»»text); this section's predecessor (section 686 of theMerchant Shipping Act 1894, as amended) referred to a British citizen being charged with an offence committed "on board a British ship on the high seas or in any foreign port or harbour" (as to which, see R. v. Cumberworth (»»text),89 Cr.App.R. 187, CA). Because of the drafting style adopted in the 1995 Act, there appears to be no requirement that the offence be on a British ship (or any ship) if it is committed in a foreign port or harbour. This was surely unintentional; for otherwise, it would purport to confer jurisdiction on the English courts over any conduct which would be an offence by English law committed within any "port or harbour" in the world, regardless of whether it was committed on board ship or not, and regardless of the nationality of the ship if it was committed on board ship.

The words "is found" refer to the time of trial: R. v. Lopez;R. v. Sattler(1858) Dears. & B. 525.

The words "on board any ship to which he does not belong" should be given their ordinary meaning in the context of the provision: R. v. Kelly and ors (»»text)[1982] A.C. 665, HL. Those persons "belong to" a vessel who have some reasonably permanent attachment to it. The phrase is wide enough to include not only the master and crew but also persons who are on the ship for a substantial time for some other purpose, e.g. scientists or engineers engaged in exploration or survey. The words do not include passengers on a passenger ferry who were only on the ship for a short voyage: ibid.

In R. v. Liverpool JJ., ex p. Molyneux[1972] 2 Q.B. 484, DC, it was said that a Commonwealth port could not be a "foreign" port; it seems unlikely that this could have been the legislative intention for the consequence would be that on the face of it, the jurisdiction of the English courts would be more extensive in relation to foreign ports and harbours than in relation to Commonwealth ports and harbours. The point may have little practical significance because it was held that "high seas" has the same meaning as when used with reference to the Admiralty jurisdiction, i.e. all oceans, seas, bays, channels, rivers, creeks and waters below low-water mark and "where great ships go", except such parts of such oceans, etc., as lie within the body of a county.

Apart from the general provisions set out above, some of the sections of the 1995 Act creating individual offences are specifically stated to apply to things done outside, as well as to things done within, the United Kingdom: see, for example, sections 14 and 15 (offences relating to a ship's British connection and offences relating to unregistered fishing vessels), and section 6 of theShipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Act 1995 (provision of coastal shipping services in breach of prohibition).

(18) Offences committed by British seamen

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s.282

282. Offences committed by British seamen

(1) Any act in relation to property or person done in or at any place (ashore or afloat) outside the United Kingdom by any master or seaman who at the time is employed in a United Kingdom ship, which, if done in any part of the United Kingdom, would be an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, shall -

(a) be an offence under that law, and

(b) be treated for the purposes of jurisdiction and trial as if it had been done within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England.

(2) Subsection (1) above also applies to a person who has been so employed within the period of three months expiring with the time when the act was done.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) above apply to omissions as they apply to acts.

For the extension of section 282 to other offences, see section 46A of theSupreme Court Act 1981 (ante, §2-31).

And then there is the Admiralty jurisdiction

General

The Crown Court has jurisdiction over offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England: see the 1981 Act,s.46(2) (ante, §2-30).

As to the geographical extent of the Admiralty jurisdiction, see R. v. Liverpool JJ., ex p. Molyneux (ante, §2-66), and post, §25-42. The jurisdiction covers offences committed within United Kingdom territorial waters, offences committed on British ships anywhere on the high seas (as defined in R. v. Liverpool JJ., ex p. Molyneux), and, by virtue of section 2 of theTerritorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, offences committed on foreign ships within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions. For the meaning of "foreign ship", see section 7 of the 1878 Act. References in that Act in whatever terms to ships, vessels or boats or activities or places connected therewith are extended to include hovercraft or activities or places connected with hovercraft: Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972 No. 971).

Proceedings for an offence declared to be within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty by the 1878 Act are not to be instituted without the consent of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state and his certificate that the institution of proceedings is in his opinion expedient: s.3. The giving of such consent and certificate are to be presumed unless disputed by the defendant; if disputed, the production of a document purporting to be signed by one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, and containing such consent and certificate shall be sufficient evidence for all the purposes of the Act: s.4.

The fact that the municipal authorities of a foreign country may have concurrent jurisdiction does not oust the jurisdiction of the Admiralty: R. v. Anderson(1868) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 161. If great ships go to the place, proof that the tide ebbs and flows is unnecessary: R. v. Allen(1837) 1 Mood. 494. The jurisdiction extends to all persons on board the ship whether British subjects or foreigners: R. v. Lopez;R. v. Sattler(1858) Dears. & B. 525; R. v. Lesley(1860) Bell 220.

Artificial structures outside territorial waters, such as a disused anti-aircraft tower (R. v. Bates,unreported, October 21, 1968, Essex Assizes, Chapman J.), are not within the Admiralty jurisdiction and the position of light-houses outside territorial waters in relation to offences committed on them has not been clearly established: see Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., 1992, Vol. 1, para. 195.

Territorial sea

The area of territory can, for the purpose of jurisdiction over offences, be extended by exercise of the prerogative: R. v. Kent JJ., ex p. Lye[1967] 2 Q.B. 153, DC; Post Office v. Estuary Radio[1967] 1 W.L.R. 1396; or by Parliament. The Territorial Sea Act 1987,s.1(1) now provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom shall for all purposes be 12 nautical miles and the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is to be measured shall for all purposes be those established by Her Majesty by Order in Council. The Act is supplemented by the Territorial Sea (Limits) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989 No. 482) made under section 1(2) which establishes the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom in the narrow part of the Straits of Dover and in the vicinity of the Isle of Man.
Proof of ship's nationality

The term "British ship" is defined in section 1(1) of theMerchant Shipping Act 1995. The definition includes a ship registered in the United Kingdom under Part II: as to the proof of information in the register of British ships established for all registrations of ships in the United Kingdom, see section 9(8) of the 1995 Act.

To prove that a ship is a British ship, it is not necessary to produce the register or a copy thereof; it is sufficient to show orally that she belongs to British owners and carries the British flag: R. v. Allen(1866) 10 Cox 406. Where it was stated by three witnesses that the vessel, on board of which an offence was alleged to have been committed, was a British ship of the port of Shields, and that she was sailing under the British flag, but no proof was given of the registration or ownership of that vessel, it was held that the court had jurisdiction, as the evidence was sufficient to prove that the vessel was British, and that being so, the court would have jurisdiction even if it had appeared that the vessel was not registered: R. v. Seberg(1870) L.R. 1 C.C.R. 264.

Offences by foreigners in foreign ships

As to offences committed within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions, see the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (ante, §2-69). Apart from cases within this statute, piracy and any offences where the particular statute provides otherwise (e.g. the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990,s.9 (»»text) (post, §25-201)), the acts of a foreigner on board a foreign ship are not justiciable in this country. Thus a foreigner who kills an Englishman on board a foreign ship is not triable in England: R. v. De Mattos(1836) 7 C. & P. 458; R. v. Lewis(1857) Dears. & B. 182. This rule applies where the ship has been illegally seized as a slaver by a British vessel: R. v. Serva(1845) 1 Den. 104.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Uh ho..............

He's just noticed that D2 is now a single engined vessel. Could I possibly trouble you to bring back the shaft and prop next time you're down SoF.;-))

 

[Fergie]

You don't need to worry about theft at sea, we are all being ripped off by the likes of MDL,PREMIRE,RYA, ect.

Dick Turpin at least whore a mask.

 

[Mirelle]

Serious answer

There are three possible jurisdictions at least two of which will always apply:

1. The law of the flag. It does not matter if the boat is unregistered, by the way. English law will always apply on board an English boat, etc., regardless of where she is. In the notorious "Mignonette" case the professional crew of a yacht which sank took to the boat in mid-Atlantic and after a few days they resolved to kill and eat the cabin boy, who was already delirious. They did, they survived, and they were prosecuted for murder, as every law student knows.

2. The law of the state whose citizen is concerned, so far as crimes committed by that citizen which are punishable if committed beyond the borders of that state are concerned, where this differes from the law of the flag. Piracy committed by an Englishman aboard a Dutch vessel would be punishable in England, for example.

3. In the case of a vessel inside territorial waters of another state, the law of that state. The hoisting of a courtesy flag is a formal recognition that this law applies.

These are real issues, crimes are committed aboard ships on the high seas and they are punished.

 

[jwatson]

You sad person. No facts and poor spelling. I'm sure you must have something going for you somewhere...just can't think what.

 

[rhinorhino]

Re: Serious answer

But then pardoned!

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Serious answer

10/10. Very good. (Now we know what you do for a living!)

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Serious answer

No, 1 out of 10. Lawyers quotes case law, then charge you to interpret.

Would have been much more useful if he'd told us what the law was in plain english. A simple summary would be nice /forums/images/icons/wink.gif