2 Q.B.

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION; 7

A D L E E v. G E O R G E . 1964
Jan. 30
Crime — Official secrets — Prohibited place — Obstruction of member of l?^ Parker
security .force—Obstruction occurring actually in prohibited place— Pauil and
8
Whether " in the vicinity of . . . prohibited place "—Official Secrets _I.1_
Act, 1920 (10 & 11 Geo. 5, c. 75), s. 3.
Statute — Construction — Absurdity or inconvenience — Avoidance of
extraordinary result—Obstruction " in the vicinity of . . . prohibited
"place"—Whether to be read as "in or in the vicinity of"—
Official Secrets Act, 1920, s. 3.
The defendant, who had obtained access to a Royal Air Force
station, a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official
Secrets Act, 1920, was actually within its boundaries when he
obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces engaged in security
duty in relation to the station. He was charged with having in
the vicinity of a prohibited place obstructed a member of Her
Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in relation to the pro-
hibited place, contrary to section 3 of the Act of 1920.' He con-
tended that, as he was actually in the prohibited place, he could
not be said to be in the vicinity of the prohibited place. He was
convicted. On appeal: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, that on the true construction of
section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, the words " in the
" vicinity of " were to be read as " i n or in the vicinity of " ; and
that, accordingly, the defendant had committed the offence charged.

CASE STATED by Norfolk Justices sitting a t D o w n h a m Market.

On May 24, 1963, an information was preferred by Albert
George; a superintendent of police, against F r a n k Adler, t h e
defendant, t h a t he on May 11, 1963, at t h e Parish of Marham
in t h e county of Norfolk in the vicinity of a prohibited place,
namely, M a r h a m Eoyal Air Force station, obstructed a member
of H e r Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in relation to
the prohibited place, contrary to sections 3 and 8 (2) of t h e
Official Secrets Act, 1920.
The justices found t h e following facts: Marham Eoyal Air
Force station was, a t all material times, a prohibited place within
the meaning of t h e Act of 1920. T h e defendant was, on May 11,
1963, actually within t h e boundaries of t h e station, and when

[Reported by L. NORMAN WILLIAMS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.]

1
Official Secrets Act, 1920, a. 3:
"No person in the vicinity of any
" prohibited place Bhall obstruct . . .
" any member of His Majesty's forces
"engaged on guard, sentry, patrol,
"or other similar duty in relation to
" the prohibited place . . . "
8
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. [1964]
1964 within the boundaries of the station, obstructed a m e m b e r of
ADLEB H e r Majesty's Eoyal Air Force who was engaged, at t h e material
«• time, on security duty at and in relation to the station.
GEORGE
It was contended by the defendant that because the charge
referred to obstruction at Marham in the vicinity of a prohibited
place, namely, Marham Eoyal 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 Eoyal 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 hound 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*

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
"iin the vicinity of" means " n e a r " or "close t o , " and does
not mean " in " or " on.". The term " in the vicinity of " is
not defined in the Official Secrets Act, 1920i 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 sec-
tion 27 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, it is made clear that
" n e a r " is the meaning to be attached in that section to the
word " vicinity." On the facts, the prosecution could have been
 y
2 Q.B. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.

brought only under section 193 of the Air Force Act, 1955, and 1964
no offence was committed against section 3 of the Official Secrets ADLBK
Act, 1920. There is a casus omissus. °-
GEOEOE
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 " i n the vicinity of," in the con-
text 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.

LOKD 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: " N o 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 ho violence is
done to the language by reading the words " in the vicinity of "
as meaning " i n or in the vicinity of." Here is a section in an
10
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION; [1964]

1964 Act of Parliament designed to prevent interference with members

ADLEB °f S e r Majesty's forces, among others, who are engaged on
«• guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty in relation to a pro-
1 ' hibited place such as this station. I t would be extraordinary, I
Lord iUkor
c j 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.
I t is to be observed t h a t 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 m a x i m u m
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 " m u s t be confined to its literal meaning of " being
" near in space " but under this section, I am quite clear t h a t
the context demands t h a t the words should be construed in the
way I have said. I would dismiss this appeal.

PAULL J . I agree.

WIDGERY J . I agree also.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor : Director of Public Prosecutions.

C A. B O L T & N U T CO. (TIPTON) L T D . v. E O W L A N D S

1963 N I C H O L L S & CO. L T D .
Nov. 15.
~ „„ „ „ [1962 B. No. 4078.]
L J
Harman ana
Danckwerts . .
Debt—Discharge — Payment by cheque — Acceptance by plaintiffs in
discharge of part of debt—Judgment signed subsequently for whole
debt—Cheque met on presentation—Whether plaintiffs' remedies
suspended by acceptance of cheque—Whether judgment irregular-
Costs of setting judgment aside—Costs thrown away—Entitlement
to—B.S.C, Ord. 13, r. 3.
Costs — Judgment irregular — Costs of setting it aside — Costs thrown
away—'Entitlement to by defendant.