- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Adler v George (1964)
Facts:
A conviction was challenged on the basis of what appeared to be a miswording in the Official Secrets Act (1920). This Act made it an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces
in the vicinity of' particular locations, but not actuallyin’ those locations. The defendant was actually inside an Air Force base at the time of the incident, which he claimed was beyond the literal scope of the Act.Held:
The words ‘in the vicinity of’ a prohibited place in the Official Secrets Act were held to cover the acts of the defendant which took place ‘within’ a prohibited place.
could you please explain this case and how is it related to golden rule ? I could not understand it .thanks on advance
The court simply held that ‘in the vicinity of’ was sufficient to include ‘in’
But why do you want to know? This is much too specific for anything that you will need for an F4 exam!
Hello thanks for your reply, this is an example of the golden rule from Kaplan textbook .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.