Skip to main content

Arrest Of Dutch Ship By The "Skipjack"

Volume 181: debated on Thursday 22 August 1907

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the captain and crew of a Dutch ship, seized on the 30th of May last for offences under the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, were placed under arrest by the captain of the " Skipjack," and subsequently prosecuted; that the charge preferred was dismissed, and the captain and crew acquitted on the ground that their ship was outside territorial waters at the time of seizure; that, upon the decision being given, counsel for His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs obtained a certificate of indemnity on behalf of the officers who executed the seizure, which could only have been granted where a claimant to the proceeds of the seizure was in existence and before the court has successfully sustained such claim, and that the defendants' solicitor consented to the certificate being granted and to the proceedings being for that purpose treated as a claim for the return of the ship and cargo; and whether, seeing that the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs, having thus obtained the certificate of indemnity which they could not otherwise have obtained, have since refused to return the ship and cargo to its owner, and have not commenced any other proceedings whatever, and that the defendants have now been kept for three months without knowledge of what is to be done or intended to he done, he will say what steps will be taken towards these subjects of a friendly Power.

As regards the first part of this Question I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down of the 4th ultimo, and to my reply thereto. I am informed that the certificate of indemnity was granted in the absence of any objection by the defendant's solicitor, but that its grant could not prejudice the owner of the vessel in any action which he may be advised to bring for recovery of damages either for the seizure of the vessel or for her continued detention since the above-mentioned proceedings were dismissed. With regard to the last part of the Question I understand that on the 24th June last the defendant's solicitor was informed, by direction of the Board of Customs, of the course to be pursued if it was desired to contest the forfeiture of the ship. A notice of claim on behalf of the owners has since been received from him; and the ordinary proceedings for condemnation of the ship are in progress. He was informed on the 2nd instant that proper notice would be given to him when these proceedings are in such a state as to render it necessary for him to take any steps to defend them.