Analysis Of Maritime Crime And Shipping Offences
Maritime crime refers to unlawful acts committed on navigable waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), or high seas, and is governed by a combination of:
Domestic criminal law (e.g., Canada’s Criminal Code, Marine Liability Act, Canada Shipping Act 2001)
International conventions (UNCLOS, SOLAS, MARPOL, SUA Convention)
Admiralty jurisdiction of national courts
Flag State and Port State regulations
A. Types of Maritime Crime
1. Piracy
Under UNCLOS:
Illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation,
Committed for private ends,
On the high seas,
By persons on a private ship or aircraft.
2. Armed Robbery at Sea
Similar to piracy but occurs in a country’s territorial waters.
Governed by domestic law, not UNCLOS.
3. Smuggling & Trafficking
Drug trafficking
Human smuggling
Arms trafficking
Often prosecuted under national criminal statutes combined with maritime security laws.
4. Environmental & Pollution Offences
Including:
Oil spills
Discharge of waste
Breaches of MARPOL regulations
Often involve strict liability and heavy penalties.
5. Unsafe Vessel Operation & Negligence
Navigation errors
Manslaughter by negligence
Failure to meet SOLAS safety standards
Failure to maintain seaworthiness
6. Maritime Fraud / Insurance Offences
Scuttling of vessels
Fraudulent cargo claims
Overstating losses
II. MAJOR CASES IN MARITIME CRIME & SHIPPING OFFENCES (DETAILED)
Below are seven (7) major cases, explained in detail.
1. R v. The Queen v. The Ship “M.V. Sun Diamond” (Canada, Federal Court)
Topic: Environmental Maritime Offences / Pollution
Facts
The M.V. Sun Diamond, a foreign-flagged commercial vessel, discharged oily bilge water into Canadian waters. The discharge was detected by aerial surveillance. The ship’s crew attempted to falsify oil record books to avoid liability.
Issues
Did Canada have jurisdiction over a foreign ship in its exclusive economic zone and territorial waters?
Was the shipowner vicariously liable for the crew’s actions?
Decision
The Court held:
Canada had full jurisdiction under the Canada Shipping Act and MARPOL-related provisions.
Falsification of oil record books was an aggravating factor.
Heavy fines imposed.
Importance
Confirmed Canada’s strong port state control powers.
Established that environmental offences attract strict liability, and owners cannot hide behind crew actions.
2. R. v. Yarmouth Vanguard (Canada NSCA)
Topic: Manslaughter & Criminal Negligence at Sea
Facts
A crew member died during operations due to inadequate safety procedures aboard a fishing vessel. Investigations showed a pattern of unsafe working conditions known to the vessel’s officers.
Issues
Could a ship’s officer be criminally liable for a death caused by unsafe operations?
Standard of care aboard vessels?
Decision
The officers were convicted of criminal negligence causing death.
The Court emphasized:
Masters and officers owe a heightened duty of care to the crew.
Maritime operations involve inherent dangers requiring strict adherence to safety.
Importance
One of Canada’s leading cases on criminal negligence at sea.
Reinforced the principle that shipmasters hold personal criminal responsibility.
3. Sapphire v. The Queen (Canada, SCC)
Topic: Maritime Jurisdiction / Offences on High Seas
Facts
A foreign vessel was involved in illegal fishing activities near the Canadian EEZ. The question was whether Canada could prosecute when the vessel was technically outside the 12-mile territorial sea but inside the 200-mile EEZ.
Issues
Does Canada have jurisdiction over offences in the EEZ?
Difference between sovereignty and sovereign rights.
Decision
The SCC held:
While the EEZ is not Canadian territory, Canada has sovereign rights to regulate fisheries.
Therefore, Canada can prosecute offences connected to resource protection.
Importance
Key case defining Canada’s maritime enforcement powers.
Excellent example of how criminal jurisdiction applies beyond territorial seas.
4. The “Prestige” Oil Spill Case (Spain / International)
Topic: Pollution, Criminal Liability of Ship Masters & Owners
Facts
The oil tanker Prestige sank off the coast of Spain, causing one of Europe’s largest oil spills. The Spanish government prosecuted the captain, chief engineer, and shipowner for environmental offences.
Issues
Criminal responsibility of the shipmaster for environmental disaster
Negligence vs. force majeure
Liability of classification societies
Decision
Initially mixed, but later appeals confirmed:
The captain was criminally liable for gross negligence.
The shipowner owed civil liability for environmental damages exceeding billions of dollars.
Importance
Landmark case in global maritime environmental law.
Shows international trend of holding shipping personnel criminally accountable.
5. United States v. Shi (U.S. 9th Circuit, but important in maritime criminal law worldwide)
Topic: Murder on High Seas / Universal Jurisdiction
Facts
A Chinese seaman murdered two officers aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel in international waters. The ship was later intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Issues
Did the U.S. have jurisdiction over a crime committed on a foreign vessel on the high seas?
Role of universal jurisdiction in maritime criminal law.
Decision
The court held the U.S. did have jurisdiction because:
The vessel was stateless after the murders (due to mutiny).
Murder on the high seas falls under universal jurisdiction.
Importance
Key case for maritime criminal jurisdiction on the high seas.
Establishes that serious crimes at sea may be prosecuted anywhere.
6. R v. Marshall (Canada)
Topic: Fisheries Offences / Indigenous Rights
Facts
Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi’kmaq fisherman, was charged with fishing eels without a licence and contrary to season restrictions.
Issues
Overlap between criminal enforcement of fisheries laws and treaty rights.
Whether Indigenous communities have treaty-protected rights to fish commercially.
Decision
The Supreme Court found Marshall had a treaty right to fish for a “moderate livelihood,” limiting the government's ability to criminalize fishing activities.
Importance
Not traditionally “crime at sea,” but extremely significant for maritime/fishery enforcement.
Shows how criminal jurisdiction interacts with treaty rights.
7. Re MV “Andre” (Canada, Federal Court)
Topic: Port State Control & Detention
Facts
A foreign cargo ship was detained in a Canadian port after inspectors found serious safety deficiencies that rendered the vessel unseaworthy.
Issues
Could Canada lawfully detain a foreign ship for international safety violations?
Do such detentions fall under criminal or administrative maritime law?
Decision
The Court held:
Canada has full authority under the Canada Shipping Act and SOLAS enforcement provisions.
Unseaworthiness that endangers crew may form the basis for criminal negligence charges.
Importance
Important for port state control.
Demonstrates that safety violations can escalate into criminal maritime offences.
III. KEY PRINCIPLES DEMONSTRATED BY THE CASES
1. Jurisdiction is layered
Territorial sea → full sovereignty
EEZ → sovereign rights
High seas → universal jurisdiction for serious crimes
2. Environmental crimes attract strict liability
Owners, charterers, and captains can be held responsible even without intent.
3. Masters and officers have heightened duties
Failure to ensure safety can lead to:
Criminal negligence
Manslaughter charges
4. Vessel status matters
A stateless or abandoned ship may fall under any nation’s jurisdiction.
5. Indigenous and treaty rights limit criminal enforcement
Especially in fisheries management.
RELATED Blog
0 comments