Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the UK (Essay Sample)

Student Name:
Assignment:
Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc109049387 \h 2The Common Law Presumption PAGEREF _Toc109049388 \h 2International Criminal Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc109049389 \h 3Trans-national Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc109049390 \h 3Theoretical Basis PAGEREF _Toc109049391 \h 4Initiatory theory of jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc109049392 \h 5Terminatory Theory of Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc109049393 \h 5Mixed Approach PAGEREF _Toc109049394 \h 5Inclusionary Theory PAGEREF _Toc109049395 \h 7Offences Given Extra-territorial Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc109049396 \h 8Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc109049397 \h 9
Introduction
The jurisdiction of English criminal courts can be categorised into two types; territorial and extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction means that those crimes or offenses which has been committed in the territory of UK or within the boundaries of UK, upon which the UK law is applicable, such acts or omissions can be tried in the English courts. However, if an English citizen or an alien have committed an offense outside the boundaries or jurisdiction of UK law, then such acts or omission cannot be tried at common law by the UK courts. On the other hand, within the territorial jurisdiction, both English citizen and an alien cam be tried for criminal charges. This is the underlying rule or principle based on which jurisdiction is exercised by UK criminal courts despite the fact that contemporary international law and statute law have made many modification in the aforesaid stated rule. Due to the existence of exemptions in the aforesaid stated rule, there are many misconceptions about this rule and therefore, in this memorandum of advice, we are trying to state the law on the basis of which UK criminal courts establish their jurisdiction while trying different offenses.[Julian D. M. Lew, 'The Extra-Territorial Criminal Jurisdiction Of English Courts' (1978) 27 International and Comparative Law Quarterly.] [mohammedmjed kabry and Azam Ansari, 'The Effect Of Party Autonomy In Extra Territorial Jurisdiction' (2019) 22 Journal of Law Research.] [Ibid.]
The Common Law Presumption
Lord Diplock developed a presumption in the case named as Treacy v D.P.P, in which he stated that it is the element of empanelment of a jury who determines the innocence or guilt of an accused who has, by means of territorial jurisdiction, personal knowledge of the accused. It means that jury determines the innocence or guilt of the accused because the accused has done such acts or omission which lies in the ambit of criminal courts jurisdiction. Therefore, innocence or guilt for an act or omission of a person outside the UK’s territory cannot be determined by jury because jury have no knowledge of it. This presumption can be considered as a fiction and in today’s world, the jurisdiction of criminal courts is not determined by such kind of presumption and it depends on the convenience of forum and the interest of the state where crime has been committed. The reason behind the modern practise of determining jurisdiction of the criminal courts is based on international comity, which means that every state is a sovereign state and no other state have a right in the international law to encroach on the territory of another state.[Treacy v D.P.P [1971] 1 AII E.R. 110 at p.119, per Lord Diplock.] [Narmin Rustam Gurbanova, 'PREREQUISITES FOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT' (2020) 54 SCIENTIFIC WORK.]
International Criminal Jurisdiction
There are three kinds of crimes which has been regarded as international crimes by International Criminal Court (ICC) and