Pre-UNCLOS offence that set the precedent for how 101(a) of UNCLOS is interpreted by US Criminal Courts until US v Dire.
Thomas Smith, in the month of March, 1819, and others, were part of the crew of a private armed vessel called the Creollo, commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres, a colony then at war with Spain, based in the port of Margaritta. Shortly thereafter Smith and others of the crew mutinied, confined their officer, left the vessel, and in while still in the port of Margaritta seized by violence a vessel, the Irresistible, a private armed vessel lying in port, commissioned by the government of Artigas, who was also at war with Spain. Smith and the rest of the crew appointed their officers, proceeded to sea on a cruise without any documents or commission whatever, and while on that cruise, in the month of April 1819, on the high seas, engaged in the plunder and robbery of a Spanish vessel. Smith was found guilty by jury of piracy.
United States Supreme Court.
In this case the court, as directed by the statute, considered the substantive content of piracy jure gentium and found that ‘robbery or forcible depredations upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy’. It was also held that when considering piracy jure gentium, no nexus of jurisdiction was necessary by virtue of pirates being enemies of the human race.
The court held that no nexus of jurisdiction needed to be demonstrated for the US to claim jurisdiction over the crime and as such the defendant could be tried (and eventually punished after being found guilty) in the US courts.
Piracy under what was Act of 3 March 1819, section 5 (which is now US Code Title 18 Chapter 18 §1651) which states: “That if any person or persons whatsoever, shall, on the high seas, commit the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, and such offender or offenders, shall afterwards be brought into or found in the United States, every such offender or offenders shall, upon conviction thereof, before the circuit court of the United States for the district into which he or they may be brought, or in which he or they shall be found, be punished with death.” (Act of 3 March 1819, section 5) (Now: Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life (US Code Title 18 Chapter 18 §1651))
The death penalty was applied.
United States Supreme Court
This case represents the first interpretation of the US criminal law on piracy since Congress adopted the approach of defining piracy by reference to the international law. The case itself represented a constitutional challenge is the lawfulness of Congress delegating legal definition to international law (with the dissenting judgement of Justice Livingston finding that such a delegation was unconstitutional). It also defined for US precedent purposes what the international law definition of piracy was, defining it as robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, with intent to steal. This definition has been used in future US cases in relation to Somali piracy, in preference to the broader definition provided in article 101 (a) of UNCLOS until it was overturned in US v Dire.