## Facts

- Frank Adler was within the boundaries of the Royal Air Force station at Marham on 11 May 1963.
- The station was a “prohibited place” for purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1911–1920.
- A police superintendent, Albert George, was engaged in security duties at the station.
- Adler obstructed George while George was performing those duties.
- Adler was charged under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, which criminalized obstructing specified security personnel “in the vicinity of” a prohibited place.
- Adler argued that because he was inside the prohibited place, he was not “in the vicinity of” it under a literal reading.

## Issues

1. Whether a person physically within a prohibited place can be “in the vicinity of” that place under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.
2. Whether the court may depart from the literal meaning of “in the vicinity of” to avoid an absurd result inconsistent with the statute’s purpose.

## Decision

- The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Adler’s conviction.
- The court held that, in context, “in the vicinity of” should be read as “in or in the vicinity of” the prohibited place.
- The court reasoned that a purely literal reading would create an irrational result: obstruction just outside the perimeter would be punishable, but obstruction on the station itself would not.

## Legal Principles

- When a literal construction of statutory language produces an absurd or anomalous result, a court may construe the language to avoid that result while staying consistent with the statute’s purpose (the “golden rule”).
- Statutory terms such as “vicinity” may take a broader meaning when the statutory context and protective purpose require it.
- A modest contextual adjustment to wording may be permitted where it prevents a clear gap in the statute’s operation.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted section 3 to cover obstruction occurring inside a prohibited place as well as nearby, applying the golden rule to avoid an absurd gap that would have defeated the protective purpose of the Official Secrets Act.


Adler v. George, [1964] 2 Q.B. 7 (Q.B.D. 1964)