procedure in Prize Courts is — and is properly — very different from the procedure in the municipal Courts.... It is the theory of the old Prize Courts, and I think it is a very sound one (!), that the Crown themselves capture or seize a vessel, and the persons whose property is seized must come here in the course of the proceedings, prepared to give grounds why their property is not confiscable. It is enough for the Crown to say, „We regard this vessel or this cargo as prize and we seize it as pnze, and we issue a writ against you in which we teil you that we are going to ask the Court for its condemnation." Thereupon the other parties must file their claim, and it is for them to shew that the seizure and capture by the Crown were not rightfully made."
Voir dans le même sens 1'opinion du „Judicial Committee of the Privy Councü" dans 1'affaire des Louisiana, Tomsk, Nordic and
joseph W. fordney (908) |
The goods (of neutrals) when seized must, of course, be brought into the Prize Court for adjudication, but in the Prize Court the neutral trader is not in the position of a person charged with a criminal offence and presumed to be innocent unless his guüt is established beyond reasonable doubt. He comes before the Prize Court to show that there was no reasonable suspicion justüying the seizure, or to displace such reasonable suspicion as, in fact, exists. The State of the captors is necessarüy unable to investigate the relations between the neutral trader and his correspondents in enemy or neutral countries, but the neutral trader is or ought to be in a position to explain doubtful points... If he does conceal matters which it is material for the Court to know, or if he neglects to explain matters which he is or ought to be in a position to explain, or ühe puts forward unsatisfactory or contradictory evidence m matters the detaüs of which must be within his knowledge, he cannot complain ü the Court draws inferences adverse tohis claim and condemns the goods in question."
Voir aussi la citation suivante du jugement relatif au Prins der Nederlanden (1066), oü Lord Sterndale, après avoir exposé les faits et les raisons de soupcon, continue comme suit:
I need not repeat the words of Lord Parker, because they have beenN citéd over and over again, with regard to the position of a claunant in these cases. They are in substance this, that ü there be anything uke a prima facie case (and I think it is rather suggested that seizure itselt is a prima facie case, but I need not discuss that) the onus is on the claimant to displace it. It is not a case, as is also pointed out, like a case in the criminal courts where the onus is heavüy on the prosecution to prove the case. If there is a prima facie case, the claimant must displace it."
Voir aussi: Italië, articles 107 des „Norme" de 1917, alinéa ier: „La cattura si presume legittima, finchè non sia intervenuta una sentenza contraria."