03/11/2018 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 1

*7 Adler v George.

Queens Bench Division

30 January 1964

[1964] 2 W.L.R. 542

[1964] 2 Q.B. 7

Lord Parker C.J. , Paull and Widgery JJ.

1964 Jan. 30

CASE STATED by Norfolk Justices sitting at Downham Market.

On May 24, 1963, an information was preferred by Albert George, a superintendent of police, against
Frank Adler, the defendant, that he on May 11, 1963, at the Parish of Marham in the county of Norfolk
in the vicinity of a prohibited place, namely, Marham Royal Air Force station, obstructed a member of
Her Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in relation to the prohibited place, contrary to sections
3 and 8 (2) of the Official Secrets Act, 1920 .

The justices found the following facts: Marham Royal Air Force station was, at all material times, a
prohibited place within the meaning of the Act of 1920. The defendant was, on May 11, 1963, actually
within the boundaries of the station, and when *8 within the boundaries of the station, obstructed a
member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force who was engaged, at the material time, on security duty at
and in relation to the station.

It was contended by the defendant that because the charge referred to obstruction at Marham in the
vicinity of a prohibited place, namely, Marham Royal Air Force station, and the evidence for the
prosecution dealt with obstruction which took place when he was actually in the prohibited place,
there was no evidence to support the charge.

It was contended by the prosecutor that the defendant, being actually within the boundaries of the
station at the material time, was in the vicinity of a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act.

The justices were of the opinion that the defendant had obstructed a member of Her Majesty's Royal
Air Force in the vicinity of a prohibited place in that, in their view, section 3 of the Official Secrets Act,
1920 , made it an offence for any person to obstruct a member of Her Majesty's forces engaged on
security duty in relation to the prohibited place when such obstruction occurred not only outside and
near to the prohibited place but also when such obstruction took place actually within the confines of
the prohibited place. Accordingly, they convicted the defendant and fined him £25 and ordered him
to pay £3 3s. towards the costs of the prosecution and bound him over in the sum of £50 to keep the
peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. They gave the defendant three months
in which to pay the fine and in default of payment sentenced him to two months' imprisonment.

The defendant appealed.

03/11/2018 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 2

The defendant in person. The justices were wrong, since the acts proved occurred on the station,
and the offence charged related to something occurring in the vicinity of the station, and "in the
vicinity of" means "near" or "close to," and does not mean "in" or "on." The term "in the vicinity of"
is not defined in the Official Secrets Act, 1920 , and the natural or popular and accepted meaning of
"vicinity" which has to be applied is to be found in the general dictionaries, such as the Oxford English
Dictionary and others. In the heading to section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949 , it is made clear
that "near" is the meaning to be attached in that section to the word "vicinity." On the facts, the
prosecution could have been *9 brought only under section 193 of the Air Force Act, 1955 , and no
offence was committed against section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920 . There is a casus omissus.

Gerald Draycott for the prosecutor. The justices' decision was right. There is no direct authority, but
it is submitted that, since the defendant could be on only one part of the station at a time, he was in
the vicinity of all the other parts of the station at that time. The meaning of "in the vicinity of," in the
context of the Official Secrets Act, 1920 , is wide enough to cover what the defendant was found to
have done in this case; to hold otherwise would be to produce extraordinary results.

LORD PARKER C.J.

This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of justices for the county of Norfolk sitting at
Downham Market who convicted the defendant of an offence contrary to section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act, 1920 , in that, in the vicinity of a prohibited place, namely, Marham Royal Air Force
station, he obstructed a member of Her Majesty's Forces engaged in security duty in relation to the
said prohibited place.

Section 3 provides that: "No person in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall obstruct, knowingly
mislead or otherwise interfere with or impede, the chief officer or a superintendent or other officer of
police, or any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol, or other similar duty
in relation to the prohibited place, and, if any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with,
this provision, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." In the present case the defendant had obtained
access to - it matters not how - and was on the Air Force station on May 11, 1963, and there and then,
it was found, he obstructed a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air Force.

The sole point here, and a point ably argued by the defendant, is that if he was on the station he could
not be in the vicinity of the station, and it is only an offence under this section to obstruct a member
of Her Majesty's Forces while he is in the vicinity of the station. The defendant has referred to the
natural meaning of "vicinity," which I take to be, quite generally, the state of being near in space, and
he says that it is inapt to and does not cover being in fact on the station as in the present case.

I am quite satisfied that this is a case where no violence is done to the language by reading the words
"in the vicinity of" as meaning "in or in the vicinity of." Here is a section in an *10 Act of Parliament
designed to prevent interference with members of Her Majesty's forces, among others, who are
engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to a prohibited place such as this
station. It would be extraordinary, I venture to think it would be absurd, if an indictable offence was
thereby created when the obstruction took place outside the precincts of the station, albeit in the
vicinity, and no offence at all was created if the obstruction occurred on the station itself. It is to be
observed that if the defendant is right, the only offence committed by him in obstructing such a
member of the Air Force would be an offence contrary to section 193 of the Air Force Act, 1955 ,
which creates a summary offence, the maximum sentence for which is three months, whereas
section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920 , is, as one would expect, dealing with an offence which can
be tried on indictment and for which, under section 8 , the maximum sentence of imprisonment is one
of two years. There may be, of course, many contexts in which "vicinity" must be confined to its literal
meaning of "being near in space" but under this section, I am quite clear that the context demands
that the words should be construed in the way I have said. I would dismiss this appeal.

PAULL J.
03/11/2018 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 3

I agree.

WIDGERY J.

I agree also.

Representation

Solicitor: Director of Public Prosecutions.

Appeal dismissed. ([Reported by L. NORMAN WILLIAMS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.] )

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Official Secrets Act, 1920, s. 3 : "No person in the vicinity of any prohibited place shall
obstruct ... any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol, or other similar
duty in relation to the prohibited place ..."

(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales

© 2018 Thomson Reuters