File 4011/1923 Pt 2 'PERSIAN GULF: NEGOTIATIONS 1928 HENJAM' [‎907v] (1821/1934)

18
3. Act I of 1849 provides for the punishment of offences committed in Foreign States
and section 2 enacts that the persons therein specified shall be amenable to the law for all
offences committed by them within the territory of any foreign Prince or State.
,’c'i
4. Bearing in mind the fact already point/out in paragraph 3 of my former Opinion
that, in the judgment of the Privy Council, statutes giving criminal jurisdiction must be
construed strictly, and that Great Britain has been in uninterrupted possession of Bassidore
for a considerable number of years, I think that no Magistrate in Bombay ought to
commit such a case as the present for trial, and that no Judge presiding at the Criminal
Sessions would tell the Jury that an offence committed at Bassidore was one which could
really be said to be committed within the territory of any foreign Prince or State. Indeed
I think 1 should feel bound, in opening such a case to the Jury, to tell them that I could not
hope for a conviction, and that I must consent to a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that
the High Court had no jurisdiction to try such a case.
(Sd.) LYTTLETON H. BAYLEY,
Advocate General.
66. The point was referred to the Government of India, and on the opinion
expressed by Lord Lytton and Sir Henry Maine, they replied to the Bombay
Government in letter No. 998, dated 8th September 1868 :—
No. 998, dated 8th September 1868.
From—W. S. Seton-Karr, Esq., Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Depart
ment,
To—C. Gonne, Esq., Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. .
4
7. r
opinion
mitted
political
and to
these re
corresp(
of July
offences
8. :
and dec
of the h
trials, f
the tria
authorii
sentence
territor;
ings she
of Boml
9. '
crimes <
resides
represer
ruler, a
India, h
ed for t
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 9th ultimo, No. 177,
forwarding a copy of certain papers relative to the commission of a murder at the station
of Bassidore on the island of Kishm in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , and enquiring whether the
Government of India consider Bassidore to be British territory.
2. In reply I am directed to convey to you the opinion of His Excellency the Viceroy
'd and Governor General in Council that the station in question cannot properly be cbnsiderred
: ! as British territory. It is perfectly true that we have occupied Bassidore either as a naval
' or coaling station for nearly half a century. But the island has been always treated by us
as a dependency of Bunder Abbas, and Bunder Abbas and its dependencies, including this
island of Kishm, and, consequently, Bassidore, have been leased to the Sultan of Muscat
by the Shah of Persia under circumstances with which the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. is
perfectly familiar. It is unnecessary to say more on this head than to refer to the renewal
of the lease which has just been negotiated by Lieutenant-Colonel Pelly and to Aitchison s
Treaties, Vol. VII, page 204.
3. It follows in such circumstances that the lessee can have no greater rights, nor be
in a better position than his lessor, and as the British Government holds possession of the
town of Bassidore by permission of the Sultan of Muscat, while that potentate derives his
lease of Kishm, winch includes Bassidore, from the Shah of Persia, it follows necessauy
that Kishm must still be considered as Persian territory. There may be some obscurity
to the exact nature of our derivative title to the town of Bassidore, and it may have been
thought that our rights over the town existed by continued usage, or that we had obtame
a prescriptive title ; but in looking closely into the question, it becomes evident that our
rights are subordinate to those of Muscat, which again are admittedly, entirely sub or i no e
, to those of Persia, and have been always so treated up to this very hour.
4. This being the real position of affairs in the opinion of the Government of lu ia, i
is now necessary to see what course ought to be followed in the case of murder whic i as
given rise to this reference, and in similar cases of heinous crimes in future.
5. Looking to the opinion of the learned Advocate General of Bombay, His Excellency
in Council thinks it hopeless to expect that the ends of justice wmuld be attaine } a] V
attempt to send the accused for trial to the High Court of that Presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. . His ^xce en^
in Council concurs in the opinion that the criminal in this instance is not amena e o
local jurisdiction of that tribunal, and though he does not hold, as the learned
appears to do, that Bassidore must, on any criminal trial, practically be treated as ri ^
and not as foreign territory, the difficulties in the way of obtaining a comention
clearly pointed out in Mr. Bayley’s opinion, that under no circumstances ought any pen
accused, in this or similar cases, to be referred for a regular trial by that High om
6. But the Government of India cannot consent to the alternative proposed, na.m.,
that the accused should be deported to the mainland and there set at liberty.
10.
should r
suggest!
measure
the pun
to put i
Governr
67.
ing rev
In
the grou
dated 19
Gulf as
with thii
2. I
enable (
tually r
assumed
3. I
separate
6
0
<;
4. A
Persian
station,
from Pe:
present 1
tile sake
military
ernment
plaii