1932 (7) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Canadian Customs Law Validity Upheld: Jurisdiction Beyond 12 Miles

Croft, E.R. (sic) Versus Sylvester Dunphy

The judgment upheld the validity of the seizure of the schooner and cargo under Canadian Customs law, affirming the legislative competence of the Canadian ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the seizure of the schooner and cargo under Canadian Customs law.2. Legislative competence of the Canadian Parliament to enact laws with extra-territorial effects.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Seizure:The schooner 'Dorothy M. Smart' was seized by a Canadian Customs officer 11.5 miles from the coast of Nova Scotia with a cargo of rum and other dutiable liquors. The seizure was conducted under the powers conferred by the Customs Act of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, c. 42, as amended by 18 and 19 Geo. V, c. 16. The pertinent sections of the statute are Sections 151 and 207. Section 151(1) allows officers to board vessels hovering in Canadian territorial waters, examine their cargo, and bring them into port. Section 207(1) authorizes the seizure and forfeiture of vessels found with dutiable or prohibited goods within territorial waters.The Respondent challenged the legality of the seizure, arguing that the Canadian Parliament exceeded its legislative competence by enacting laws that purported to operate 12 miles from the coast.2. Legislative Competence:The central question was whether the Dominion Parliament had the authority to pass legislation affecting areas beyond its territorial waters, specifically up to 12 miles from the coast. The Respondent contended that the Parliament of Canada was debarred from enacting provisions designed to operate beyond its shores or beyond a marine league from the coast.The judgment addressed the principle that states can legislate effectively only for their territories. However, it acknowledged that for certain purposes, such as police, revenue, public health, and fisheries, states might enact laws affecting the seas surrounding their coasts beyond the ordinary territorial limits. This principle is supported by authorities like Lord Stowell in the case of Le Louis (1817) and various international law texts.The judgment further examined whether the Canadian Parliament, under the British North America Act, had the power to enact customs laws with extra-territorial effects. It was noted that the Dominion Parliament has full power to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, as well as for specific subjects enumerated in Section 91 of the British North America Act. The judgment cited precedents like The Queen v. Burah (1878) and Hodge v. The Queen (1883), which affirmed the plenary legislative powers of colonial legislatures within their prescribed limits.The judgment also referenced historical customs legislation by the Imperial Parliament, which included anti-smuggling provisions operating beyond ordinary territorial limits. The 'Hovering Acts' allowed the seizure of vessels with dutiable goods found hovering off the coasts within distances exceeding territorial limits. This historical context suggested that the Imperial Parliament intended to bestow similar legislative powers on the Dominion Parliament.The judgment concluded that the Canadian Parliament was not restricted from enacting provisions similar to those in Imperial customs legislation, and such measures were necessary for effective anti-smuggling enforcement. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, which declared that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws with extra-territorial operation, was also noted, though it was deemed unnecessary to determine its retrospective effect.Conclusion:The judgment advised that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada be reversed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia be restored. The Appellant was awarded the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada.