British Possessions

A British possession is a country or territory other than the United Kingdom which has the British monarch as its head of state.

Overview

In common statutory usage the British possessions include British Overseas Territories, and the Commonwealth realms but not protectorates. British admiralty law has a less expansive meaning under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, where a "relevant British possession", includes the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) and "any colony" (the self-governing British Overseas Territories). It may also be used more expansively, to refer to member states of the Commonwealth of Nations which have a continuing tradition of British law even after they have become republics, and even if those countries no longer recognize themselves as British possessions.

Although the term enjoyed some use in statutes prior to 1889, the formal definition of British Possession came in the Interpretation Act 1889, which was superseded by the current Interpretation Act 1978.

Definition

1889 and 1978 definition

Two acts in the Parliament of the United Kingdom define the current status of British possessions: the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Interpretation Act 1889. In the reign of Queen Victoria (), the Interpretation Act 1889 defined the British possessions in its article 18, section 2:

According to the 1890 1st edition of '' Stroud's Judicial Dictionary'', this definition applied to "In all Acts of Parliament passed after the 31st Dec. 1889". According to Kenneth Roberts-Wray's 1966 ''Commonwealth and Colonial Law'', this definition "includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for they are not in the United Kingdom, ''q''. ''v''.". The last part of this definition had already appeared in earlier legislation, including in the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 ( 46 & 47 Vict. c. 57). Hence, according to the 1933 11th volume of the 2nd edition of '' Halsbury's Laws of England'' edited by Douglas Hogg, 1st Viscount Hailsham:

''Halsbury's Laws of England'' noted that a different definition is used where necessary to include subnational entities as British possessions, rather than only the federations of which they are part: "In certain Acts the term includes both the part under the central legislature and those under local legislatures" and "These cases are necessary where the central legislature is denied the power to deal with the subject-matter".

In the reign of Elizabeth II (), the Interpretation Act 1978 defined the British possessions in its schedule 1, with text identical to that in the 1889 act. According to Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson in the 2018 2nd edition of ''British Overseas Territories Law'', "the definition is evidently very wide" and the term is "anomalous as far as independent states covered by it are concerned".

According to Roberts-Wray in 1966: "This expression is now rarely used; like other terms it is discredited. For obvious reasons it clearly implies subordination. That objection would be overcome to some extent if it did not exclude the United Kingdom; but the word "British" would still be questionable for the same reason as in the case of "the British Commonwealth of Nations."" According to Michael J. Strauss's 2015 ''Territorial Leasing in Diplomacy and International Law'', "it is not uncommon for countries to use the term "possessions" for territories they control". According to Hendry and Dickson in 2018, while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare". According to the 2021 reissue of the 13th volume of the 5th edition of ''Halsbury's Laws of England'', the terms "'British possession', 'British settlement', 'colony', 'protectorate' and 'protected state'" are "now effectively obsolete".

Early definitions

Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863

The Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863 ( 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24) defined the British possessions in its article 2:

According to Roberts-Wray, the definition in the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863 shows that "Early definitions were afflicted by the prolixity of nineteenth-century conveyancing counsel, who probably drafted them".

In earlier legislation, such as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, the term "colonies" had been used to distinguish "all of Her Majesty's Possessions abroad in which there shall exist a Legislature". The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 specifically excluded the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from the definition of "colony".

Documentary Evidence Act 1868

The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 defined a "British Colony and Possession" in its section 6:

The definition of "British Colony and Possession" in the Documentary Evidence Act 1868 includes the Channel Islands and the Isles of Man, but does not exclude the United Kingdom itself. According to Roberts-Wray, this was an "accident".

Coinage Act 1870

The Coinage Act 1870 defined the British possessions in its article 2:

According to David Murray Fox and Wolfgang Ernst, this legislation "was relevant internationally since the Queen in Council was authorized to issue proclamations extending its operation" to the British possessions, and "marked the last stage in consolidating the sterling union".

Extradition Act 1870

The Extradition Act 1870 defined the British possessions in its article 26:

The definition of "British possession" in the Extradition Act 1870 excluded the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Slave Trade Act 1873

The Slave Trade Act 1873 defined the British possessions in its article 2:

Fugitive Offenders Act 1881

The Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 defined the British possessions in its section 39:
According to Paul O'Higgins, "one of the most important of the legal ties linking the independent members of the British Commonwealth is the special procedure for intra-Commonwealth extradition embodied in the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881", which "has survived the many changes which have taken place since then, in particular the attainment by the Commonwealth countries of full international personality". The law empowers the governor of a British possession to surrender a fugitive to the custody of another "if he thinks it just". According to the 1933 11th volume of the 2nd edition of ''Halsbury's Laws of England'', citing a 1906 case, "the Commonwealth of Australia is not a British possession for this purpose, because the federal legislature has no power over the subject matter of that Act, so that Victoria must be reckoned still such a possession".

Post Office (Parcels) Act 1882

The Post Office (Parcels) Act 1882 defined the British possessions in its section 17

The definition of "British possession" in the Post Office (Parcels) Act 1882 excludes the Channel Islands and the Isles of Man, but does not exclude the United Kingdom itself. According to Roberts-Wray, this was "presumably by accident".

Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883

The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 defined the British possessions in its section 117:

The definition of "British possession" in the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 excluded the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884

The Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 defined the British possessions in its section 18:

The definition of "British possession" in the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 excluded the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

British Settlements Act 1887

The British Settlements Act 1887 – which distinguished a particular category of British possession which had been "acquired by settlement" distinct from those "acquired by cession or conquest" – defined the British possessions in its article 6:

As British possessions acquired without cession or conquest, Ascension Island, the British Antarctic Territory, the Falkland Islands, the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Tristan da Cunha all take their statutory basis as British possessions and British settlements from the British Settlements Act 1887.

Later definitions

Colonial Probates Act 1892

The Colonial Probates Act 1892 defined the British possessions in its section 4:

According to the 2009 13th volume of the 5th edition of ''Halsbury's Laws of England'', the Colonial Probates Act 1892 is one of the acts in which "the term may include both the parts under the central legislature and those under the local legislatures", which differs from the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978.

General Clauses Act 1897

In the law of India and the law of Pakistan, "British possession" is defined by the General Clauses Act 1897.

Medical Act (1886) Amendment Act 1905

The Medical Act (1886) Amendment Act 1905 defined the British possessions in its section 1:

Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907

In the reign of Edward VII (), the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 defined the British possessions in its article 1.3:

As a result of the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907, and unlike other overseas laws, statutes, books of authority, and legal decisions, such documents from the legislatures of British possessions may be submitted as evidence in courts in the United Kingdom without an expert to explain them, provided that they are printed by the government printer. According to Roberts-Wray, unlike the definition of "British possession" given in the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act 1883 and the Interpretation Act 1889, the definition in the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 includes "component parts of a federation, such as the Canadian Provinces and the Australian States" – otherwise, the definition "may not fit in with the division of legislative powers". According to the 2009 13th volume of the 5th edition of ''Halsbury's Laws of England'', the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 is one of the acts in which "the term may include both the parts under the central legislature and those under the local legislatures", which differs from the definition in the Interpretation Act 1978.

The Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 applied to British Cyprus, even though Cyprus was a British protectorate, not a British possession. The text of the act made provision for the act's extension by an Order in Council to "Cyprus and any British protectorate, and where so extended this Act shall apply as if Cyprus or the protectorate were a British possession". The relevant Orders in Council, issued in 1909 and amended in 1922, extended the act to Cyprus and to the Bechuanaland Protectorate, the British Solomon Islands, Nigeria, Northern Rhodesia, the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Nyasaland, Somaliland, Southern Rhodesia, Swaziland, Uganda, and Zanzibar. According to the 2022 11th volume of ''Halsbury's Annotations'', "The protectorates to which this Act was extended are now no longer protectorates, and Cyprus is now an independent republic but the Order in Council may still be relevant to the application of this Act to the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia which were retained when Cyprus became independent)."

Solicitors Act 1932

Protectorates

The effect of the decision in ''R v Earl of Crewe, ex parte Sekgome'' (1910) was that British protectorates were not British possessions, they were foreign countries to which the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 applied.

Application

Admiralty law

In British admiralty law under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, a "relevant British possession", includes the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) and "any colony" (the self-governing British Overseas Territories). If a ship is "is registered under the law of a relevant British possession", it may be classed as a "British ship". Accordingly, "The flag which every British ship is entitled to fly is the red ensign (without any defacement or modification)" but "in the case of British ships registered in a relevant British possession, any colours consisting of the red ensign defaced or modified whose adoption for ships registered in that possession is authorised". As defined by a statutory instrument of 2008, the "relevant British possessions" are:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Copyright law

According to D. P. O'Connell, writing on the terms "British possession" and "Her Majesty's dominions" in ''The American Journal of International Law'' in 1964, "Where necessary, courts have construed these expressions to include territories which have gained republican status, but which have retained British legislation".

According to T. G. Agitha and N. S. Gopalakrishnan writing in 2013, in a copyright case in the Madras High Court before the introduction of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the defendant accused of violating copyright claimed that the Copyright Act 1911 (as modified by the Indian Copyright Act 1914) "being a law for the publishers of the UK, ceased to be operative in India when India became independent in 1947 and particularly after the country attained Republican status in January 1950, with the result that there was, at the relevant period, no copyright in India in published works". The defence had maintained "that under the terms of section 25 of the 1911 Act itself its provisions were inapplicable to self-governing dominions and when India attained the status of a self-governing dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act 1947, the 1911 Act ceased to apply in India" According to O'Connell, the defence argued that "since India had ceased to be a "British possession" and copyright protection is reciprocally predicated upon original publication in a "British possession," the Act could not apply. The court rejected the defense". According to Agitha and Gopalakrishnan, the Madras High Court's judgement rejecting the defendant's arguments was "in line with the accepted view in international law that the emergence of a new state or a change of sovereignty within a state does not bring about any change in the private rights of its citizens or the law governing such rights".

Extradition law

In the law of South Africa, the status of the Union of South Africa as a "British possession" was tested in an extradition case disputing jurisdiction between the Union of South Africa and Basutoland. Since the British Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 stated that "Where two British possessions adjoin, a person accused of an offence committed on or within the distance of five hundred yards from the common boundary of such possessions may be apprehended, tried, and punished in either of such possessions", a court in Mohale's Hoek claimed jurisdiction to try the case of defendant whose crime was alleged to have been committed in South Africa, but within of the Basutoland border. Having been convicted, the defence appealed, arguing that a Basutoland court had no jurisdiction because the Union of South Africa was not a "British possession" under the Status of the Union Act, 1934, which, following the Statute of Westminster 1931, had made South Africa a sovereign state. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Union of South Africa was indeed a "British possession", and that the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 applied. In 1937, W. P. M. Kennedy, commenting on this case in the '' University of Toronto Law Journal'', suggested that the Dominion of Canada might have ceased to be a "British possession", writing that 'since, under the Statute of Westminster, Dominions are no longer colonies "notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889", it is submitted that they are no longer "British possession"', but admitting that 'the point is arguable'.

The Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 ceased to apply to the Union of Burma and the Republic of Ireland when those countries withdrew from the Commonwealth. Under the Ireland Act 1949, British laws which previously extended to the Irish Free State as part of "His Majesty's dominions" continued to apply to the Republic of Ireland, but the same was not true of those which applied to British possessions, even though under the Interpretation Act the British possessions are defined as being "any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom". According to Roberts-Wray, "If that had been the intention it would have been made clear; the saving provision in the Ireland Act operates, it is submitted, only on direct references to Her Majesty's dominions and not, via the Interpretation Act, on references to British possession".

In the law of India, the Supreme Court of India determined in 1954 that relevant provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 did not apply to India, as India had ceased to be a British possession on adoption of the republican Constitution of India in 1950. According to Paul O'Higgins writing for '' The International and Comparative Law Quarterly'' in 1960: "From the point of view, however, of United Kingdom courts the Act still applies in relation to India. This is because of the India (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1949, which provided for the continued application of existing law in relation to India, notwithstanding its new status as a Republic."

Writing in ''The American Journal of International Law'' in 1964, D. P. O'Connell noted that, under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, " rendition has been successfully claimed by or from India, Pakistan, Ghana, Cyprus, Nigeria and the United Kingdom, and by Australia in Ceylon, without the defense being successful that, in virtue of independence, the Act could no longer apply". According to O'Connell: "However, it must be noticed that, at the time of rendition, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ceylon were still monarchies, and the United Kingdom statutorily maintained the Fugitive Offenders Act in relation to India and Cyprus".

New Zealand ceased to be a British possession after adoption of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973, which modified the provisions of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947. For example, in 1976 the unreported case of ''Re Ashman and Best'' held that the country was not a "British possession" for extradition purposes, notwithstanding the application of the UK Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 to British possessions. The New Zealand Parliament later passed the Constitution Act 1986, which ended the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to legislate for New Zealand.

Criminal law

The question of British possession status arose in the 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial. A number of men on the Pitcairn Islands were accused of sexual offences and prosecuted under British statutes. Because the islands had been founded by mutineers from and lightly administered by the British, including a period of administration by Fiji prior to its independence, the defendants on appeal raised the question as to whether Pitcairn Islanders were British subjects liable to prosecution under British law. The Privy Council denied the appeal, having found Pitcairn to be a British possession under the British Settlements Act 1887, which had been extended to the Pacific by an order in council in 1893 and to Pitcairn in particular in 1898 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain.

Delivering the judgment, Lord Hoffman spoke of the "legal status of the Pitcairns as a British possession". Lord Wolff said " In my view the evidence that Pitcairn is and was at all relevant times a British possession was overwhelming and so I agree with Lord Hoffmann, that for the purposes of determining these appeals, it is not necessary to explore the limits of the act of state doctrine".

According to Gordon Woodman, "In the case of Pitcairn the starting-point for argument was the proposition that the territory was a British possession". In 1790 Pitcairn was , and according to Andrew Lewis "Once a British possession, it would require a deliberate act of abandonment or cession to another to change its status". According to Dino Kritsiotis and A. W. B. Simpson, "the finer legal points as to the actual timing or moment of territorial acquisition were not regarded as essential to, or determinative of, the prosecution's case".

Nationality law

From 1867, Chinese people born in a British possession, together with their children, were one of four categories of people classed as " Anglo-Chinese" and entitled to a degree of British protection by agreement with the Qing dynasty.

In the first three decades of the 20th century, naturalization in the British Empire was governed by the Naturalization Act 1870 ( 33 & 34 Vict. c. 14) and by a report circulated at the 1902 Colonial Conference, which sought to establish a common standard of naturalization to be recognized throughout the empire for both internal and external purposes. The interdepartmental report allowed "a Secretary of State, or the Governor of a British possession, to confer the status of a British subject upon persons who fulfil the requisite conditions in any part of the British Dominions".{{Cite book , last=Karatani , first=Rieko , url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BvEnv2fjN-gC , title=Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain , publisher= Frank Cass , year=2003 , isbn=9780714653365 , location=London , pages=73 , language=en

Notes

References

British Empire