The Crown prosecution service sought judicial review of a decision by the registrar of marriages to celebrate the marriage between the parties. He was due to face trial for murder, and she was to give evidence against him.
Held: The registrar should be allowed to continue and to celebrate the marriage. It could not be said that the defendant was doing this to attempt to avoid liability for a serious crime. He might do other things also such as calling witnesses. ‘The right to marry has always been a right recognised by the laws of this country long before the Human Rights Act came into force. The right of course is also enshrined in article 12 of the Convention. It has more recently been held that prisoners are not to be denied that right in the cases cited by the judge. The right, furthermore, must not be denied to B who has indeed born a child to J. It seems to me that the right of marriage carries with it the incidences of marriage, including that the wife may not be compelled to give evidence against her husband or vice versa. ‘
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1661
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1978
The defendant had married the complainant only two days before he was to face trial for assaulting her. The House considered whether she was compellable as a witness against him as his wife.
Held: A spouse ought not to have been compelled to . .
Cited – Hamer v United Kingdom ECHR 1979
(Commission) The Commission considered the right of a prisoner in prison to get married.
Held: A rule against such marriages was incompatible with article 12. The Commission explained the power of national laws in relation to article 12: ‘Such . .
Cited – Sydnet Draper v United Kingdom ECHR 1980
(Commission) Rule against marriage of prisoners breach of art 12: ‘The Commission first recalls that the Court has held that, even though a right is not formally denied, ‘hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Puttick CA 1981
The applicant, then Astrid Proll, fled bail in Germany when awaiting trial on terrorist charges, entered England and under a false name, and married Mr Puttick. She resisted extradition saying that under the 1948 Act she was now a British National. . .
Cited – Regina v Registrar General, ex parte Smith CA 1991
The applicant was detained in Broadmoor, having been convicted of murder in 1977 and of manslaughter in 1980. He suffered from serious mental instability and psychosis The second killing was of a fellow prisoner whom he believed to be his adoptive . .
Cited – Regina v Chief National Insurance Commissioner Ex Parte Connor QBD 1981
The court was asked whether the rule against forfeiture applied so as to disentitle an applicant from receiving a widow’s allowance when she had killed her husband with a knife. She had been held guilty of manslaughter but simply placed on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Family, Human Rights
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217833
