NOTE also affected by extradition which occurs through bilateral treaties and

Note also affected by extradition which occurs

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 57 pages.

NOTE: also affected by extradition which occurs through bilateral treaties and is not considered customary IL NOTE: contention over whether improper apprehension of a suspect by a state is a bar to jurisdiction highly fact based, no precedent not a bar in history ( Eichmann; Nikolic ) NOTE: even if a State chooses the wrong basis for exercising jurisdiction, this will not be an issue if it has another valid basis ( Lotus ) 29 Downloaded by Thomas Murdoch ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|2832619
Image of page 29
[Type here] CASES ON JURISDICTION Lotus Case (France v Turkey) (1927) - Territory + effects principle (on the high seas) Collision on high seas F and T vessels, T instigated criminal proceedings (8 Turkish sailors killed) ISSUE: was assertion of jurisdiction by T valid? Effects principle always query how far can be applied. At least 1 constituent element of offence in territory and more specifically its effects = juris (approved Turkey ’s objective juris) For manslaughter, effect is of outstanding importance (punished according to effects) Without permission, State may not exercise power in any form in territory of another state. (applies to jurisdiction) High seas, no state ex juris over foreign vessels Freedom of the seas: ship in same position as national territory (by flag flying = territory of that state) Doesn ’t mean state in own territory can’t ex juris over acts on foreign ship on high seas Treat ship as normal territory of state, therefore apply normal principle of juris if effects felt No rule of exclusive criminal juris to flag-flying state. NB: Territoriality of criminal law NOT ABSOLUTE EFFECTS PRINCIPLE IS CONTROVERSIAL appears to say that T could exercise prescriptive juris in absence of any proof of rule to contrary - not widely accepted. State asserting juris generally bears onus of proving connection Foreign diplomatic premises - R v Turnball; ex parte Petroff (1971) Threw flaming bottle into Soviet Embassy in Canberra Argued that did not commit crime in Aus territory therefore crt has no juris Crime committed on premises of foreign diplomatic premises is part of Australia ’s territory (not foreign) for the purpose of jurisdiction Whilst entering may be prevented by rules of diplomatic inviolability Must be entitled to these principles (Petroff was not) Consider if breach by receiving state (Aus) of inviolability of premises Territorial waters and foreign ships - R v Disun; R v Nurdin (2003) Arose from Tampa incident Asylum seekers rescued in Aus waters b/w Indonesia/Aus by Norwegian vessel. D argued arrested on N ship = N territory, and Aus have to seek extradition Arrest in territorial waters = juris to state with territory (not ship ’s territory as not on the high seas) No rule that ship entering foreign territorial waters immune from local juris (Chung Chi Cheung v R) Foreign Warship: extra-territorial immunity, implication crew/officers won ’t be prosecuted in respect of conduct related to military activities of ship + personnel.
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture