Adler v George (1964) 2 QB 7
Chapter 2
Relevant facts
On 11 May 1963, Frank Adler, while within the boundaries of Marham Royal Air Force
station, obstructed Albert George, a police superintendent engaged in security duties at
the station. Adler was charged with contravening section 3 of the Official Secrets Act
1920 (UK). The section provided:
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.
Adler argued that as he was actually in the station he could not be ‘in the vicinity of’ the
station, based on the literal meaning of ‘vicinity’. The prosecutor argued that Adler’s
presence within the boundaries of the station was sufficient to be in the vicinity of a
prohibited place within the meaning of the Act.
The justices of the County of Norfolk found Adler guilty. Adler appealed the decision to
the Queens’ Bench.
Legal issue
What meaning should be given to section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 (UK)?
Should it be interpreted literally or should it be interpreted as referring to a person ‘in or
in the vicinity of’ a prohibited place?
Decision
On 30 January 1964, the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court unanimously held that Adler
was guilty of the offence. The Court held that it would be absurd to confine the word
‘vicinity’ in section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 (UK) to its ordinary meaning of
‘being near in space’ because the result would be that it was an offence to cause an
obstruction in an area outside but near in space to a prohibited area but no offence to
cause the obstruction in the prohibited area. Accordingly, it was held that ‘in the vicinity
of’ should be read as meaning ‘in or in the vicinity of’.
