Public Prosecutor v Nai Meng Panpuak

• Jurisdiction: Tailandia
• Date: 13 May 1958
• Court: Central Criminal Court (Thailand)

Thailand, Central Criminal Court, Bangkok.

Public Prosecutor

and

Nai Meng Panpuak et Al.

Jurisdiction On the high seas Enforcement of municipal legislation The law of the flag Extension of law to national ships on the high seas The law of Thailand.

The Facts.The accused were charged with offences against the Customs Duties Act, 1939, by carrying certain dutiable goods on board the Sra Kaew II without payment of import duties. The prosecution alleged that the Sra Kaew II was lying anchored at Laem Pakbia, Bara Laem, Petchburi, and that certain goods were being unloaded from her on to a small boat for landing. On noticing that the transhipment was being watched by customs officers, the accused fled to the high seas. The goods in question included large quantities of tobacco which, under the Tobacco Act, 1943, could not be brought into the Kingdom of Thailand without the permission of the Customs Office. The prosecution contended that the offences were committed oh board a Thai ship, in Thai territory as well as on the high seas, and moved to confiscate the goods. (Further facts appear from the Held below.)

Held: that the Court had neither penal nor fiscal jurisdiction over activities carried on outside the territory of the Kingdom of Thailand; that the places where the acts were alleged to have been committed were outside the territorial waters of Thailand, i.e., outside the three-mile limit; and that therefore the Court was without jurisdiction to try the case.

The Court said: The prosecution has produced no evidence to show that the Sra Kaew II was actually lying anchored at Bara Laem, Petchburi, for the purpose of unloading certain cargo on to a small boat. It appeared further from the witness for the prosecution that, from the moment the Sra Kaew II was sighted until her arrest, she was in fact sailing on the high seas, and no transhipment took place on that day either on the Sra Kaew II or the Harint Panitch or on any other ship in that area.

However, it does appear that the goods seized by the customs officers from the Sra Kaew II, listed in the Annex, were dutiable goods, for which no import duties had been paid. The question now arises whether the carriage by the accused of the said goods as proved by the prosecution constituted the offences with which they were charged.

In this connection, it appears from the evidence given by the last two witnesses, namely, Nai Poon Daisuk and Nai Pu Boonbanterng, who were employed on the Sra Kaew II as engineer...