R v. Allen
Rule established
Golden Rule applied to narrow "marry" to mean "going through a ceremony of marriage" rather than "contract a valid marriage," avoiding the absurdity of making bigamy impossible to commit.
Facts
- Allen went through a ceremony of marriage while his first wife was alive
- Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 57: offence to "marry" during lifetime of first spouse
- Defence: since a bigamous marriage is void ab initio, Allen never "married" in law
Issue
- Whether "marry" in the bigamy statute means contracting a valid marriage or merely going through a ceremony.
Held
- Literal reading would make bigamy impossible to prove (absurd result)
- Golden Rule applied: "marry" narrowed to mean "go through a ceremony of marriage"
- Conviction upheld
Ratio Decidendi
Where the literal meaning of a word would defeat the purpose of the statute by making the offence legally impossible to commit, the court will apply the Golden Rule to adopt a narrower or modified meaning.
How to use it in an exam
- Golden Rule applied to narrow a word (contrast Adler v. George where it was widened)
- Stock example of Golden Rule preventing absurdity
- Key line: "In R v. Allen (1872), the court narrowed 'marry' to mean 'going through a ceremony of marriage,' since a literal reading would make bigamy impossible to commit."
Source
Source: LR 1 CCR 367; standard textbook authority
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.