Flying the “skull and crossbones”, bombarding a victim’s vessel with cannon-balls and sailing the high seas are not, for the purposes of a policy of marine insurance, the essential indicia of the modern pirate. Such are the views of Staughton, J., in the recent case of The Andreas Lemos.1

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff shipowners insured the hull and machinery of their vessel, the Andreas Lemos, on the terms of a standard form of Lloyd’s S.G. policy which included insurance against “pirates, rovers, thieves”. Attached to this policy was an f.c. & s. clause excluding, inter alia, “piracy” from the cover. In order to fill this gap in their insurance cover, the owners entered their vessel with the defendant mutual war risks association which insured the vessel against, inter alia, “piracy” and “riots”.

On June 22, 1977, the Andreas Lemos was anchored in the Chittagong Roads, about two miles offshore, within the 12-mile territorial sea claimed by Bangladesh. During the night a gang of boarders, armed with long knives, stole ship’s material and equipment worth approximately U.S. $5,750. The theft was complete before the gang was discovered. The plaintiff claimed against the defendant association for a loss by “piracy”. In a reserved judgment, Staughton, J., decided that the loss had not been caused by piracy and that the defendant was not liable to indemnify the plaintiffs.

The defendant association argued for a definition of piracy which requires acts of piracy to be committed on the “high seas” outside the jurisdiction of any State. Such a definition would not have covered the events which took place on the night of June 22 within the territorial waters of Bangladesh. The definition canvassed by the plaintiffs, on the other hand, would enable acts of piracy to take place within territorial waters and in all waters “within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty”.

For the purposes of international law, Art. 15 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas defines piracy as pertaining to the “high seas” or “outside the jurisdiction of any State”.2 There was little authority to assist Staughton, J., in