Maritime Law and Practice in Nigeria: Nil

MARITIME LAW AND

PRACTICE IN NIGERIA

NIL

Dr. Collins O. Chijioke

AuthorHouse™

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: 1 (800) 839-8640

© 2016 Dr. Collins O. Chijioke. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 07/26/2016

ISBN: 978-1-5246-1843-8 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5246-1842-1 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016911324

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Table of Contents

Dedication

Acknowledgements

Table of Cases

Table of Statutes

Table of Treaties

International Declarations

International Resolutions

Abbreviations

Preface

Chapter One: Historical Background

1:1. Evolution of Maritime Law in Nigeria

1:1:2. Early Law and Customs of the Sea

1:1:3. English Statutes from 1406-1454

1:1:5. Colonialism and its effect

1:2. Development of Maritime Law in Nigeria

Chapter Two: Definition and explanation of key terms

2:1. Dangerous Goods

2:2. Frustration

2:3. Carrier

2:4. Charter Party Contracts

2:5. Bill of Lading

2:6. Master

2:7. Owner

2:8. Ship

2:9. Common Carriers

2:10. Voyage Charter-Party

2:11. Demise Charter

2:12. Time Charter

2:13. Other Forms of Charter Party

2:14. Laytime

2:15. Storage

2:16. Delivery Order

2:17. Towage

2:18. Gross Terms

2:19. Free In and Out

2:20. Shipowners’ Lien

2:21. Substitution Vessel

2:22. Intertanko’s Intercon80

2:23. Deadfreight

2:24. No Delivery Freight

2:25. Advance Freight

2:26. Out – Turn Loss and Cargo Retention Clauses

2:27. Demurrage

2:28. Manchester Trust Presumption

2:29. Seaman

2:30. Ship-owner’s Responsibility

2:31. Forum

Chapter Three: Maritime Law regulation of Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea

3:1. The Hague Rules on Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea.

3.2. The Hague-Visby Rules on Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea

3.3. The Relevant Provisions of theHamburg Rules

3:4. Analysis of Undomesticated International Conventions on Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea in Nigeria

3:4:1. International Maritime Organization Convention 1948

3:4:2. International Conventions on the Control of Escape of Dangerous Goods and Maintenance of Safety of Life at Sea

3:4:3. International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, Supplement Convention, 2006

3:4:4. International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Accident and Protection of the Marine Environment

3:4:5. The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS)

3:4:6. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

3:4:7. The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009

3:4:8. The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti Fouling Systems on Ships, 2000

3:4:9. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2003 is another important international convention which seeks to protect the environment from the menace of dangerous goods.

3:5. Differences between the Nigerian Laws and International Conventions on Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea

3:6. Categories of Dangerous Goods.

3:7. Regulatory Bodies

3:8. Marine Pollution

3:9. Pollution from Routine Tankers and Equipment of Tankers

Chapter Four: Admiralty Jurisdiction

4:1. Admiralty Jurisdiction and Administration of Port

4:2. Nature of Admiralty Jurisdiction

4:3. The Cabotage Regime

4:3:1. Advantages of Cabotage

4:3:2. Evaluation of the Coastal and Inland Shipping (CABOTAGE) Act, 2003

4:3:3. European Union Practices of Cabotage

Chapter Five: Maritime Claims

5:1. Proprietary Maritime Claims

5:2. General Maritime Claims

5:3. Arrest of Ship and other Property

5:3:1. Re-arrest and determination of priorities

5:4. Interdiction of ship

5:4:1. International Waters/High Seas Jurisdiction

5:4:2. Interdiction in Fishery Related Offences

5:5. Maritime Litigations

5:5:1. Method of instituting action for the arrest of Ship

5:5:2. MaritimeCaveats

5:5:3. Release of Arrested Ship

5:6. How to Effect Service of Processes in Maritime Actions

5:7. Ownership disputes

5:7:1. Filing of caveat

5:7:2. Power to detain ships and other property

5:7:3. Marine Insurance

5:7:4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Chapter Six: Registration, Ownership

of Ship and voyage

6:1. Procedure for registration of ships

6:2. Nationality of ship and the issue of genuine link

6:3. Unseaworthy ships

6:4. The Voyage

6:4:1. Preliminary Voyage

6:4:2. The Carrying Voyage

6:4:3. The Last Voyage

6:4:5. Redelivery of the Vessel

6:4:6. Damage To Vessel

6:4:7. Damage to Cargo

6:5. Environmental Degradation

6:6. Grain Regulation

6:7. Animals and Meat

Chapter Seven: Common Law Reliefs

7:1. Damages

7:2. Injunction

7:3. Abatement

7:4. Contribution to General Average

7:5. The Nature of General Average

7:5:1. Historical Backgroundof General Average clause

7:5:2. Legal Sources of the Law of General Average

7:5:3. Essential conditions for a General Average act

7:5:4. The Basis of General Average and the Nature of the cause of action arising from the obligation to contribute in General Average

7:6. General Average and related legal concepts distinguished

7:7. Allocation of risk of General Average in the Maritime Industry

7:8. The Interaction between General Average and the Principles of Carriage of Goods by Sea in the Re-allocation of risk and loss

7:9. The Interaction between General Average and Marine Insurance in the Re-allocation of risk

7:9:1. The Interaction between General Average and Marine Insurance in the Re-allocation of Maritime risk with the advent of Marine Insurance

7:10. The extent of the Insurer’s liability for General Average Sacrifice and Expenditure

7:10:1. General Averageallocation under Standard Insurance Policies

7:10:2. Specific Insurance provisions outside institute clauses

7:11. The Changes Introduced by the York-Antwerp Rules 2004

7:11:1. Analysis of the changes

7:12. Usage of the YAR 2004 and the CMI abortive efforts to ensure their widespread use

7:12:1. Reactions by Insurers

7:12:2. Reactions by Average Adjusters

7:12:3. Post-Vancouver Developments in Countries

7:12:4. CMIabortive efforts to achieve widespread use of the YAR 2004

7:13. The previous successful revision processes of The York-Antwerp Rules

7:13:1. Ingredients of the previously adopted Processes in the revision of the YAR

7:13:2. The 1950 Rules

7:14. The York-Antwerp Rules 1994

7:14:1. The CMI’s Role in the Revision of the YAR 1994

7:14:2. Response of other interested Parties’to IUMI’s Proposals

7:14:3. CMI Pre-Vancouver 2004 Meetings

7:15. Comparison of the Process adopted in the successful Revision of Previous versions of the YAR and the Process adopted in the Revision of the YAR 1994

7:16. Conclusion and Recommendations

7:16:1. Recommendations as to substantive revisions of certain Rules

7:16:2. Recommendations as to the process of adopting the Rules

Chapter Eight: Statutory Enforcement

8:1. Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-Boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal 1989

8:1:1. The Montreal Protocol and the Bamako Convention 1991

8:1:2. Oil in Navigation Waters Act

8:1:3. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating thereto (Marpol 73/78)

8:1:4. Merchant Shipping Act8

8:1:5. Criminal Liability under Other Domestic Laws

8:1:6. Petroleum Act 1967

8:1:7. Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act

8:1:8. Harmful Wastes (Special Criminal Provisions) Act

8:2. International Law Perspective of Tortuous Liability

8:3. How to Pursue Remedy for environmental pollution

8:4. Common Law Remedies

8:4:1 Trespass

8:4:2. Nuisance

8:5. Common Law Defences for Tortuous acts affecting the Environment

8:5:1. Statutory Authority

8:5:2. Necessity

8:5:3. Negligence

8:5:4. The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

8:6. Evaluating the Issue of Proof

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the Almighty God in whom I live and have my being.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I   am immeasurably indebted in gratitude to DR. C. O. Ukattah my student, friend and brother, who was at a time the head of my Law Firm (Flame Chambers), whose scholarly contribution added a lot of value to this work.

I humbly acknowledge and appreciate the support of my dear wife Nonye Collins-Chijioke and my children Precious O. Collins-Chijioke, RafealRhema O. Collins-Chijioke, Angel C. Collins-Chijioke and Carilyn C. Collins-Chijioke; not forgetting my cousins EmekaNwoha (UK), Godwin Ogbonnaya (Ohamadike – UK), Michel IheanyiAnosike (Uk), My friends; PetusNwoke (US), Samuel Agochi (US), Dave Uzosike UK), UgochukwuIniyama (UK), EmekaAnyanwu (UK) and J. O. Idowu and family (US).

I also extent my appreciation to my colleagues and staff in Chambers namely; Iheukwumere Onwuchekwa Esq, O. O. ElenduEsq, Kelechi Eke Esq, Azuma ChinagoromEsq, NjidekaIbekwe and NnennaIjioma.

I can never forget the erudite guidance availed me by Professor U. O. Umozuruike of blessed memory, my colleagues in the Faculty of Law of Abia State University such as Dr. M. O. Unegbu, Dr. E. Ngwakwe, Dr. Innocent Okoronye, P. C. Ugochukwu, Dr. Same Erugo, Dr. Sam Agu, Dr. C. K. Nwankwo, Dr. Chika Odoemelam, Mrs. DibugwuOgbonnaya, Mrs. ChizobaOkpara, John Kennedy O, Rev. E. Ibezim, Steve, Amaramiro, OguchiEnwere, EmekaOkoroafor, A. B. Chiafor and others too numerous to mention.

My guardian and role mode Professor Ernest Ojukwu SAN, Sir, your efforts are highly acknowledged. I lack words to appreciate the likes of Professor U. U. Chukwumaeze my friend, colleague and brother, O.C.J. Okoacha SAN, Chief Chris Uche SAN, K. C. Nwufor SAN, A. O. Obianwu SAN, Chief Solo Akuma SAN, Chief OkeyAmechi SAN, Professor F. N. Ndubuisi Professor C. K. Agomoh, C. C. EleleEsq, Uche E. OgbonnayaEsq, A. O. UgwaEsq, Steve OnwuasonyaEsq, A. C. OkoroaforEsq, all the members of the Nigerian Bar Association, all the members of London court of International Arbitration and all the members of the bench. All though it is impossible to acknowledge all the magistrates and judges who have been instrumental to legal training but I would be unfair to conclude without mentioning the likes of Hon. Justice. C. C. Nweze (Justice of the Supreme Court), Hon. Justice J. I. Okoro (Justice of the Supreme Court), Hon. Justice Mary U. Peter Odili (Justice of the Supreme Court) ChidiNwaomaUwa JCA, Onyekachi Aja Otisi JCA, Raphael ChukwuAgbo JCA, J. E. Adiele J; C. C. T. Adiele J; A. C. Chioma J; K. C. Nwankpa J; Obisike Oji J; O. A. K. Ogwe J; U. Ononogbu J; C. H. Ahuachaogu J; A. U. Kalu J; To all the members of University of Lagos Class 89, I say aluta continua!

TABLE OF CASES

TABLE OF STATUTES

TABLE OF TREATIES

INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS

INTERNATIONAL RESOLUTIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

PREFACE

T his book is the author’s attempt to contribute to the bridging of the gap in knowledge in this area of the law. There is paucity of literature in maritime law in Nigeria. This book is written in simple and understandable English to ensure fluidity of reading. It is presented in such a way as to provide for information in the areas of commercial law, carriage of goods by sea, maritime law as well as practical steps in maritime law litigation and related actions.

Particular consideration has been given to the study of carriage of dangerous goods by sea, a subject which existing legal literature in Nigeria merely mentioned in passing. Suffice it to say that this book is the first Nigerian legal literature that has explored that subject taking into consideration our domestic laws and international treaties; most of which are yet to be ratified and domesticated in Nigeria. Though the work has Nigeria as its geographical location, it has discussed the subject with comparative analysis of contemporary development in some areas of maritime law with special reference to the United Kingdom and the United States.

It is the author’s belief that this book, apart from providing practical guide to maritime litigation in Nigeria would also serve as veritable tool for teaching and studying of maritime law and related courses in Nigerian Universities and other territory institutions and would be immeasurably useful to legal practitioners and members of the bench.

Dr C. O. Chijioke

Faculty of Law

Abia State University

CHAPTER ONE

Historical Background

T he Lex Mercatoria ¹ Constitutes the foundation of Modern Commercial Law ² being an International Law of Commerce which is rooted in the general customs and practices of Merchants in Europe.

International Commercial activities evolved over time from intenary trading to carriage of goods by sea, having seen the advantage of shipping in trans-boundary transportation during the early days of invasion and territorial expansion. International shipping in the 12th century was bedevilled by activities of pirates, especially as there was no organized international body to harmonize international shipping activities. Attempts were made in England in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries to tackle the activities of pirates by contracting out the keeping of seas.

This was followed by series of Acts and proclamations. For instance proclamation was made in England in 1426 which aimed at discouraging piracy and purchasing of goods sold by pirates. Even pirates were also hired to check the activities of pirates in high seas. The need to protect the sea, gave rise to the formation and nurturing of a strong navy in England which duty it was, to protect the territorial waters of England against likely enemies and pirates.

The formation of a strong navy in England marked a departure from reliance on pirate treaties and pirates for protection of sea trade; and hence by the middle of the seventeenth century the Royal British Navy had taken full control of British Territorial Waters and paved way for expansionist policy and subsequently scramble for colonies in Africa; and Indian continents.

The development of shipping in Nigeria must obviously be traced to the activities of her colonial master, Great Britain in the country. Before the advent of British colonialism in Nigeria, commerce was already a lifestyle of the people except to say that Merchants involvement in International trade was by land, through the Sahara and Tripoli³ through established routes.

According to Williams:

The emergence of trans-Saharan trade in the Western Sudan began after the Muslim Arab invasion of North Africa in the seventh century when camel transport had increased the freight loads that trading caravans could carry…..The gold trade linked the forest belt of West African with the Mediterranean and beyond it to Europe and Asia…. the export to Britain was slave⁴.

The British adventure into Nigeria was not just based on their expansionist interest but also due to the outcome of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century Europe which created the need to look for market outside Great Britain; and carriage of those goods by sea obviously became the best option. The first point of call of the colonialists was the coastal states of Nigeria. With share brutality and gunboat diplomacy the colonialists were able to intimidate and subdue the chiefdoms of the coastal states of Nigeria and established their suzerainty over them. The coastal areas would bring their articles of trade including those bought from the Hinterland, creeks and would ferry them to the meeting points where the colonial masters would in turn buy and transport them by sea to their homeland. Such articles of trade included slaves, gold, iron ore, cocoa etc.

The culture of International Merchant Shipping as at this time could be said to be that of the colonial masters, who were later to impact same on Nigerians after adulterating and bastardizing their culture; coupled with discretion of our traditional stools. The treatment meted to the likes of King Pepple Bony Kingdom and King Jaja of Opobo lends credence to this assertion⁵. The British was taking over the major commercial activities of the coastal states under the auspices of the Royal Niger Company.

The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria in 1914 by Sir Frederick Laggard saw the formation of what could be called the first visible colonial government in Nigeria, which resulted in the establishment and control of commerce and shipping amongst others in Nigeria. While Lord Frederick Lugard presided as the Governor General there was no Nigerian statute guiding carriage of goods by sea at this time, the colonialist applied the colonial statutes of their homeland; and subsequently enacted their own laws for the country while their colonial regime subsisted. Those colonial laws in force in Nigeria during the colonial regime were; the Sale of Goods Act 1893, Bills of Lading Act 1855, The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 and the Carriage of Goods Act of 1926. They are to be regarded as colonial statutes in that they were not home grown. All these statutes are of general application to Nigeria.

Carriage of dangerous goods by sea was regulated by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 which devoted very little attention to the subject. Our law on this subject as presently constituted is a recapitulation of the said old English Act, which has been variously amended and improved upon in England and the rest of the Western World, more especially as International Legislations on carriage of dangerous goods by sea has now been left in the hands of the International Maritime Organization.

It is illustrational to note that carriage of dangerous goods by sea apart from being regulated by the Merchant Shipping Act, carriage of Goods Act and other International Conventions made by International Maritime Organization, may overlap in certain circumstances touching on the law of the sea and it is therefore necessary to comment briefly on the law of the sea.

The law of the sea was the subject of the first contemplated attempt of the International Law Commission to place a large segment of International Law on a Multilateral treaty basis⁶, which attempt resulted in four conventions namely, the Geneva Conventions on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone⁷, Geneva Convention on the High Seas⁸, Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf⁹, and Geneva Convention on fishing and conservation of the living Resources of the High Seas¹⁰. The inadequacy of the regime of Continental Shelf resulted in its being replaced with the regime of the deep sea bed and concern for the conservation of fishing resources and the prevention of pollution¹¹, has led to the general approval of an approach based upon control by the coastal state over wide areas of the sea adjacent to its coastline. Although the 1958 conventions achieved this much, the 1982 convention on the law of the sea recorded further liberalization of the rules that existed under the 1958 convention, most striking of which are the rules on the exclusive economic zone and the deep sea bed. It is also remarkable in the sense that the convention accepted a 12-mile territorial sea, stricter control of marine pollution, and acceptance of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone for coastal states. It is then easy to determine when a cause of action arises from activities relating to carriage of dangerous goods by sea and can be dealt with under the domestic law. Even when the cause of action occurs outside the territorial water limits, such could still be dealt with by reference to the International Tribunal for the Law of the sea¹² which sits in Hamburg.

Nigeria can only effectively employ these rules to deal with causes arising from carriage of dangerous goods by sea, only when she ratifies, adopts and domesticates the relevant International Conventions on carriage of dangerous goods by sea¹³; especially in view of the fact that the intricacies of jurisdiction over foreign ships in the territorial sea can be circumvented by taking advantage of conventions of the International Maritime Organization to fashion our local legislations on that subject; as well as placing reliance on the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933.

1:1. Evolution of Maritime Law in Nigeria

Modern commercial Law developed from Rules and practices of itinerant Merchants in Europe in the middle ages. It goes without saying that disputes often arose amongst Merchants which were settled by the Rules of Merchant practices as against the regular courts. The Merchants themselves constituted and handled their adjudicatory process by applying the general customs and practices which over time came to be known as Lex Mercatoria¹⁴ which in turn, later became an International Law of commerce. The sources of International Merchants Shipping can therefore be categorized as usages and custom, Lex Mercatoria, contracts, legislation, and International Conventions which in turn, later became an International Law of commerce. The sources of International Merchants Shipping can therefore be categorized as usages and custom, Lex Mercatoria, contracts, legislation, and International Conventions.

The term Usage was explained in the American case of Sam Levit furniture Co. v. Safeway Stores Inc¹⁵. As a habitual or customary practice which prevails within geographical or sociological area and its course of conduct is based upon series of actual occurrences, and in order to bind parties to a contract, it must be adopted by them or be well known to parties or to persons in their circumstances.

It is then clear that the element of repetition of a conduct is what qualifies it as a usage. Usage also has the character of acceptability amongst the parties to which the conduct or practice apply. This is underscored by the dictum of Thomas J in the case of Cunliffe – Owen v. Teather and Greenwood¹⁶ as follows:

A party to a contract is bound by usages applicable to it as certain, notorious and reasonable, although not known to him. If the practice though certain and notorious is unreasonable, it of course follows that it cannot constitute a usage which the courts will enforce. Nevertheless if a party knows of such a practice and agrees to it then, though unreasonable, he is bound by it.

Custom and usage may be referred to as a single source but some writers have separated and treated each of them as different sources of Commercial Law. It is the writer’s view that both of them stand for the same thing and may be used either jointly, disjunctively or even interchangeably, for instance schmitthoff in defining commercial custom said that:

Commercial practices, usage or standards which are so widely used that business people engaged in International trade expect their contracting parties to conform to¹⁷.

It is not only in international trade that custom or usage has become a source of commercial law, even in Nigeria, custom has come to be accepted and regarded as a source of law¹⁸.

According to Sealy and Hooley, Lex Mercatoria suited the need of the Merchants and it was speedy administered by merchant courts which shunned legal technicalities and often decided cases ex aequoet bono. It was during this period that some of the most important features of modern commercial law were developed such as: the bill of exchange, the charter party and Bill of Lading, the concept of assignability and negotiability, the acceptance of stoppage in transition and general average¹⁹. Lex Mercatoria was fully integrated into common law by the late seventeenth country²⁰.

A learned author saw the incorporation of Lex Mercatoria into common law as a very important unifying factor in the regulation of international trade and carriage of goods by sea²¹.

Contract is one of the sources of International Shipping Law. It is based on consensus ad idem between the contracting parties. It should be noted that, contracts of International sale of goods and carriage of goods by sea are among the most common types of contracts developed as a distinct category to which general principle of contract law apply and have added to them as an addition, special rules applicable to special transactions alone²².

Legislation is one of the major sources of the law of International Merchant Shipping. It may be International or Local. International legislation is one of the major sources of International Merchant Shipping Law. It deals with International trade and Transboundary carriage of goods by sea. It ensures uniformity of laws between one nation and another or others provided such nations have adopted, ratified and domesticated such International Conventions or treaties. Although Nigeria has domesticated the three major conventions on carriage of goods by sea which are, the Hague Rules, the Hague – Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules²³ but she is yet to adopt, ratify and domesticate more than six requisite conventions on carriage of dangerous goods by sea.

1:1:2. Early Law and Customs of the Sea

It was not only the English that discovered the usefulness of shipping. Others may have realized that the immigrants from the continent who settled in England by 2500 B.C and built the Stonehenge²⁴ must have entered England through the sea. So England appeared to have decided that as other countries were able to invade her and establish their authority in England, so could England also invade other territories, colonize those territories, and establish both government and trade in those colonies. But then, there was no formal International Organization such as, the African Union, European Union or the United Nations to harmonize International Shipping and check piracy at sea, and each sea loving nation had to employ its own method to protect its shipping and colonies²⁵. The seas in those days were ruled by the courageous and powerful who later became known as pirates.

For example, shortly before 1294, Nicholas of Oxford, Richard son of Eustach²⁶ and other seamen of The Rose of Harwich rose upon the merchants on board, who were returning from Flanders with bullion, slew them, and seized the bullion worth about 6000l. Thereafter they sailed The Rose to Harwich and there they disembarked with the spoil²⁷.

However, although the juries of Suffolk pressed charges against Nicholas and his fellow buccaneers before the king, there was no record that an arrest was ever made²⁸. Subsequently, Nicholas and other pirates were pardoned on the condition that they would accompany the king to Gascony²⁹. It should be mentioned at this point that pardon to seamen of this sort were not uncommon in England of those days. The king pardoned Nicholas and his company, by a charter in the following terms³⁰:

Edward, by the Grace of God king of the English, Lord or Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine, to all his bailiffs and trusty men, to whom these present letter shall come, greeting. Knowing ye that whereas we moved by pity, in that so many and divers men of our kingdom so often incur loss of the life and members, of whom some being arraigned, some indicted, and others appealed by approvers, for homicides, robberies, and other crimes, and divers misdemeanors committed against our peace, and some trespass of the forest; and (whereas) these men are wandering over the country, doing, committing, and instigating, in divers ways, many evil (things), whereby some of them are imprisoned, and some are outlawed or have withdrawn from England.

(Now) to the intent that such evils may be avoided and in the hope of the amendment of such evil doers and for the peace of the people of our great realm, and also at the request of the prelates, earls, barons, and others of our council, we, of our special grace, have granted that all such men, who wish to return to our peace, may come before us, or before our dear and trusty Roger Brabazone and William of Bereford, whom we have appointed for this purpose, or before one of them, in person or by their friends, find sufficient bail that they will forthwith set forth in our service to Gascony, and there to remain at our wages, so long as it shall please us, and afterwards return from thence to receive judgment in our court if any shall wish to sue them for the homicides, robberies, and other crimes and misdemeanors, for which they are arraigned or appealed, or for which they are imprisoned, outlawed, or have fled the country, and that they being so bailed, and their bail being witnessed by the same Roger and William, or one of them before our Chancellor, may have our letters patent pardoning them the suit of our peace, which belong to us, touching such homicides, robberies, crimes, and misdemeanours, and also outlawry, if any (outlawry) shall have been declared in that behalf at our suit;

We, willing (to extend) our grace to Nicholas, the son of Robert of Oxford, who has withdrawn himself on account of the death of Hugh of Winchester, John le Code, Richard of Dunstable, William Turges, and others, who were in a certain ship on the sea, and on account of a robbery committed in the same ship against our peace, wherein he was arraigned he having found bail before the aforesaid Roger and William in the form aforesaid, as by the same Roger and William is witnessed before our Chancellor have pardoned the same Nicholas the suit of our peace, that belongs to us, touching the aforesaid death and robbery, and have granted him our firm peace, provided he forthwith sets forth in our service to Gascony aforesaid, there to remain as is aforesaid; and provided also that, when he shall return from thence, he stands to judgment in our court, if any shall wish to sue him for the death and robbery aforesaid. In ourselves at Funtley this 25th day of July in the 22nd year of our reign.

Before the pardon by King Edward of Nicholas of Oxford³¹, the pirate boasted that in ‘early times’ a formidable naval force had existed which was independent of both government (of England and France), and which, when not hired as auxiliaries by one of (what he called) the belligerent powers in time of war, acted as their own interests dictated³², acknowledging no authority but that captain who they elected, and restrained by no national moral law. He stated that the said independent naval force inspired terror wherever they went and obtained the general name of pirates³³.It should however be stated at this point that as a legal term, piracy belongs to a later date than 1294 A. D. when Nicholas of Oxford was pardoned by King Edward. For example, although the Latin word pirate was common then, it was not always used in evil sense. In 1309, wines were stated to have been captured mare piratico; in 1355 pirates et aliiinimici nostril were spoken of³⁴; in 1939 one Robert Blake who robbed a ship at sea was called pirata³⁵. However in the twelth century many ships in the service of William 11 were spoken of as pirata – Jan mare munieratpiratis³⁶. Nonetheless before the latter part of fourteenth century robbery at sea seems to have been dealt with in the King’s court as one and the same crime as robbery on land; and so for murder and assault³⁷.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)³⁸ as follows:-

Piracy consists of any