R v. Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. J (Appellant)), Etc.
103. This consideration is determinative when one considers the special nature of the crime of aggression. It is a public international law crime of a different nature to any so far received and recognised in domestic law. It is a crime committed primarily by the state itself. I agree that it would, for the reasons given by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in paragraphs 30-31 and by Lord Hoffmann in paragraphs 65-66, be incongruous for the courts to treat it as a domestic crime without specific statutory authority.
104. The incongruity would be underlined by the exclusion from the International Criminal Court Act 2001 of any reference to the crime of aggression, a point which is not undermined by the fact that the International Criminal Court's present lack of jurisdiction over crimes of aggression is itself probably attributable to the international community's inability to reach agreement on the pre-conditions for bringing any charges relating to such crimes before that court.
105. I therefore agree that the public international law crime of aggression is not a crime or offence under domestic law, and so not a crime for the purpose of section 3 of the 1967 Act or an offence for the purpose of the 1994 Act.
106. I also agree with Lord Hoffmann's remarks in paragraphs 70 to 94 on the limits of self-help in the context of section 3 of the 1967 Act.
|© Parliamentary copyright 2006||Prepared 28 March 2006|