## Facts

- The case concerned the interpretation of section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, which made it an offence to obstruct Her Majesty's Forces “in the vicinity of a prohibited place.”
- Mr. Adler was charged with obstructing military personnel inside a Royal Air Force (RAF) station, a location designated as a prohibited place under the Act.
- The prosecution argued that the statutory offence included actions both inside and around a prohibited place.
- The defence contended that “in the vicinity” only encompassed obstructions occurring outside, but not inside, the prohibited place.
- A literal interpretation appeared to imply that obstructing personnel outside the prohibited place was an offence, but doing so inside was not.

## Issues

1. Whether a literal interpretation of “in the vicinity” limits the offence to acts outside a prohibited place, thereby excluding conduct occurring inside.
2. Whether the wording of section 3 required a purposive or literal approach to statutory interpretation.
3. Whether applying the golden rule was appropriate to prevent an absurd or inconsistent result with legislative intent.

## Decision

- The Queen’s Bench Division applied the golden rule of statutory interpretation to section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.
- The court found it “absurd” that obstruction inside a prohibited place would not constitute an offence, while obstruction just outside would.
- The court held that the provision should be read as “in or in the vicinity of a prohibited place,” thereby encompassing actions both inside and near prohibited locations.
- The conviction was upheld, ensuring the statute’s purpose was fulfilled and the loophole closed.

## Legal Principles

- The golden rule allows judges to depart from the literal meaning of statutory language to avoid absurd or inconsistent outcomes.
- Statutory interpretation should prioritize the legislative purpose where strict literalism leads to results contrary to Parliament’s intent.
- The judiciary is only justified in modifying statutory language when it is necessary to prevent an injustice or contradiction of purpose, not simply to prefer a different outcome.

## Conclusion

The judgment in Adler v George established that courts may invoke the golden rule to modify statutory wording when a literal approach produces an absurdity, ensuring that legislation serves the purpose intended by Parliament.

Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7