## Facts

- Jamaican authorities observed the *Star Baby*, a U.S.-registered vessel crewed by U.S. citizens Bernard Pianka and Terry Hylton, traveling at night without lights about 3.8 nautical miles off Jamaica’s coast, within Jamaica’s 12-nautical-mile territorial sea.
- The coastguard intercepted and searched the vessel and discovered a large quantity of cannabis (ganja), reported as over 3,000 pounds.
- The appellants were charged under Jamaica’s Dangerous Drugs Act with possession of ganja and using a conveyance to carry ganja, summary offences triable before a resident magistrate.
- A resident magistrate convicted the appellants and, in related proceedings, ordered forfeiture of the *Star Baby* after receiving additional evidence.
- The Jamaican Court of Appeal upheld the convictions but set aside the forfeiture order, reasoning the magistrate lacked power to take further evidence beyond the criminal trial record.
- The appellants appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council challenging jurisdiction over offences by foreigners on a foreign ship in Jamaican territorial waters; the Crown appealed the forfeiture ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether Jamaica had criminal jurisdiction to try foreign nationals on a foreign-registered vessel for summary drug offences committed within Jamaica’s territorial sea.
2. Whether domestic jurisdiction-conferring statutes should be read as excluding “minor” offences on foreign ships in passage, in light of principles associated with the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878.
3. Whether the right of innocent passage under the 1958 Geneva Convention limited Jamaica’s enforcement jurisdiction in these circumstances.
4. Whether the resident magistrate could receive further evidence in forfeiture proceedings or was confined to the trial evidence.

## Decision

- The Privy Council (majority) dismissed the appeal against conviction and upheld the convictions.
- The Privy Council (unanimously) allowed the Crown’s appeal on forfeiture, reversed the Court of Appeal on that point, and restored the magistrate’s forfeiture order.
- The Board rejected the claim that foreign ships or foreign nationals enjoyed a general immunity from the application of Jamaica’s drug laws in its territorial sea.
- The Board rejected the claim that the vessel’s conduct was protected by innocent passage.

## Legal Principles

- A coastal state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over conduct within its territorial sea, including conduct occurring on a foreign-flagged vessel, absent a specific statutory or international-law limitation.
- There is no general presumption that domestic criminal statutes do not apply to foreign ships in territorial waters; any exclusion requires clear legal basis.
- The framework associated with the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 did not compel a narrow reading that would remove summary drug offences on foreign ships from the jurisdiction of Jamaican magistrates where Jamaican legislation extended territorial reach to adjacent waters.
- The international-law right of innocent passage is qualified; transportation of large quantities of illegal drugs is not “innocent” passage and does not bar coastal-state enforcement measures in territorial waters.
- Forfeiture proceedings connected to drug offences may permit receipt of additional evidence where the statutory scheme contemplates a determination beyond the criminal trial record.

## Conclusion

The Privy Council held that Jamaica could apply its summary drug laws to foreign crew on a foreign vessel intercepted within Jamaica’s territorial sea, and it reinstated forfeiture of the vessel, concluding that neither alleged statutory limits nor innocent passage displaced Jamaica’s jurisdiction or the magistrate’s forfeiture powers.


Pianka v. The Queen, [1979] A.C. 107 (P.C. 1979)