British possession

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in statutes prior to 1889, the formal definition of British Possession came in the Interpretation Act 1889, which was superseded by the current Interpretation Act 1978.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 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). ''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". According to Hendry and Dickson in 2018, while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare". 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: The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 specifically excluded the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man from the definition of "colony". 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: Medical Act (1886) Amendment Act 1905 The Medical Act (1886) Amendment Act 1905 defined the British possessions in its section 1: provided that they are printed by the government printer. 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)." 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). 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" 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. 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." 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. 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". == Notes ==