References: Unreported, 25 June 1941
Coram: Langton J
Langton J said: ‘[Counsel] said that it was a matter of common knowledge that young people, for a period, at any rate, after their marriage had intercourse only with the intervention of contraceptives. On this part of his common knowledge I can only offer him my sympathy. It is no part of my common knowledge and I decline to accept it as a matter of common knowledge at all.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Baxter -v- Baxter HL ([1948] AC 274)
The House considered whether a wife who insisted that her husband always used a condom was thereby guilty of a wilful refusal to consummate the marriage within the meaning of section 7(1)(a).
Held: She was not, for a marriage may be . . - Cited – Regina (Smeaton) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn (Times 02-May-02, Bailii, Bailii, Gazette 30-May-02, [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin), [2002] EWHC 886 (Admin), (2002) 2 FLR 146)
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
