Abstract:
This is the third in Mr. Wharam’s series of articles on the legal implications of U.D.I. (See [1967] C.L.J. 189 and 1969 R.L.J. 21.) In this article Mr. Wharam examines the possible defences that might be available to members of the Royal Navy if they were prosecuted for causing loss of life or damage to property in pursuance of the blockade.
His conclusion is that no defence recognized by English law would be available, but the Crown would presumably not prosecute, and if a private prosecution were instituted one may suppose that the Attorney-General would issue a nolle prosequi. A foreign country whose subjects were the victims might or might not demand extradition, in which event the Crown would no doubt refuse to surrender its servants on the ground that the alleged crime ras of a political nature.
On 6th April 1966, the Security Council of the United Nations called upon the Government of the United Kingdom to blockade Beira and if necessary to use force against any ship believed to be carrying oil to Rhodesia: the relevant part of the resolution reads as follows:
“The Security Council calls upon the Government of the United Kingdom ... to prevent, by the use of force if necessary, the arrival at Beira of vessels reasonably believed to be carrying oil destined for Southern Rhodesia.”