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