Deokinanan v R

• Jurisdiction: Guyana
• Judgment Date: 05 April 1965
• Date: 05 April 1965
• Court: Court of Appeal (Guyana)

British Guiana, Caribbean Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Deokinanan

and

R.

State territory — Parts of state territory — Rivers — National rivers — British vessel on river in a foreign country — Whether British court has jurisdiction over crime committed on board such a vessel — The law of British Guiana

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Over ports and national waters — Crime committed in British ship when on river in foreign country — Whether British court has jurisdiction — The law of British Guiana

Jurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — Rivers — Crime committed on British ship when on river in foreign country — Whether British court has jurisdiction — The law of British Guiana

Summary: The facts.—The appellant was charged with the offence of murder. The indictment alleged that the offence was committed on board a launch which was in motion upon the Corentyne River, and that this was in the county of Berbice. There was no averment that the offence was committed on the high seas. Berbice was part of British Guiana [now Guyana]; but the Corentyne River was not, being part of Surinam. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed.

Held: The trial was a nullity. The place where the act took place was outside British Guiana, the courts of which were therefore without territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Nor could the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Courts be invoked since there was no averment in the indictment that the offence was committed on the high seas, and even though there was prima facie evidence that the launch was a British ship, there was no evidence to show that the Corentyne River was at any time a place where great ships go.

The following is the text of the judgment of the court (delivered by Archer, P.):

This appellant was convicted of murder at a sitting of the Supreme Court at Berbice and sentenced to death. The offence was alleged to have been committed on board a launch which was in motion on the Corentyne River. The appellant and the deceased were both employed aboard the launch. The indictment charged the commission of the offence in the County of Berbice.

The appellant has now appealed on two grounds. The first ground is that the Supreme Court of British Guiana had no jurisdiction to try him on the indictment. The argument was based on the contention that the Corentyne River is wholly outside British Guiana. Counsel for the appellant submitted several propositions. The first proposition was that the boundary between British Guiana and Surinam is as set out at p. 6 of Volume VII of the Laws of British Guiana. The reference is to an agreement concerning the boundary between the County of Berbice and Surinam contained in an Act relating to the boundaries between Berbice and Surinam of February 7, 1800.

Counsel's second proposition was that the Supreme Court of British Guiana was authorised to try the appellant only if the Corentyne River is within the Admiralty jurisdiction and by virtue of s. 29 of the Supreme Court...