R v Lewis (1857) Dears & B 182
Murder – High Seas – English jurisdiction where both the victim and the perpetrator are not British citizens
Facts
John Lewis (J), a French-American seaman, injured a German man (G) on board an American ship on the high seas. G died in hospital in England after arrival of the ship in Liverpool. J was convicted by the last Liverpool Assizes for manslaughter under section 8 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1828 (the 1828 Act) which provided that where a person is ‘feloniously stricken’ on the high seas and dies in England, England has jurisdiction over the case. The case was reserved and stated for the consideration and decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Issues
The issue in question before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether, under the circumstances of this case, the offence committed was cognizable by English law; whether the Liverpool Assizes had jurisdiction to try and convict J, where neither J nor the victim, G, were subjects of the Queen and the offence was committed on the high seas.
Decision/Outcome
The offence was not cognizable by English law. England had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case where a foreigner injured another foreigner on the high seas, leading to that person’s death, albeit in England. Section 8 of the 1828 Act was read in conjunction with section 7 of the same act, which provided that British subjects can be tried in England for murder or manslaughter committed abroad. Upon reading these sections in conjunction, the words ‘feloniously stricken’ under section 8 of the 1828 Act therefore had to be read as ‘felonious’ only where the perpetrator was a British citizen, which J was not. The 1828 Act being inapplicable to J, the conviction was quashed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Lewis (1857) Dears & B 182. As a mid-nineteenth century common law authority on criminal jurisdiction, the case itself remains historically and doctrinally significant as stated.
However, readers should be aware that the statutory basis discussed in the article — the Offences Against the Person Act 1828 — was repealed and replaced, primarily by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which itself contains provisions dealing with jurisdiction over offences committed abroad and on the high seas (see in particular sections 9 and 10 of the 1861 Act). The modern legislative framework for extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction has developed considerably since 1857, including through later legislation such as the British Nationality Act 1981 and various specific statutes extending jurisdiction over particular offences. The case therefore remains relevant as an illustration of a common law principle of statutory construction in a jurisdictional context, but students should not treat the 1828 Act provisions discussed as representing the current legal position on English extraterritorial jurisdiction.
