Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter

    Post no longer relevant
    • Very Important Poster

    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Izzy Summers)
    Hi all.

    Can someone please help me try to understand a bit of the Perjury Act 1911 relating to marriage?

    Section 3(2) says:-
    *No prosecution for knowingly and wilfully making a false declaration for the purpose of procuring any marriage out of the district in which the parties or one of them dwell shall take place after the expiration of eighteen months from the solemnization of the marriage to which the declaration refers.*

    I read this as someone who lies to get married won't be prosecuted if they haven't been caught for 18 months. Does that mean they could get away with a sham marriage? Or would the marriage be voided anyway and they just wouldn't be prosecuted for Perjury?

    Also, what happens if they get married and live in the same district? I assume they could be prosecuted after 18 months but why is there a difference? Why does it matter where they live?

    Or have I misread it?

    Just a quick look into it and I think its an ld act and you have missed out S3(1). You really need to look at your textbook or the supplementary notes in something like Blackstones.

    There are many other offences dealing with sham marriages that are available to prosecute under.
    • Very Important Poster

    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Izzy Summers)
    Thanks @999tigger, but the danger of only having a quick look is you completely missed the point of my post.

    I haven't mentioned s.3(1) because I know what it means - it creates offences.

    What I would like help with it explaining the conditions in s.3(2) on prosecuting one of those offences.

    I really did read Blackstone's and PNLD but they have just copied and pasted the subsection without any keynotes. Maybe they don't get it as well.

    Thanks for looking any way.
    Until I had done the research and knew the context then I wouldnt draw a conclusion either way. Anyway GL in finding out.

    (Original post by Izzy Summers)
    Thanks 999tigger

    The context is: someone makes a false declaration to get married in a district they do not live. 18 months later s/he cannot be prosecuted for perjury.

    I can't see why living in another district is an exemption? And does the 18 months' condition mean that the marriage will continue even though s/he lied and it's not valid?

    I've tried Blackstone's, BAIILI, PNLD and the CPS website with no luck.

    Where would you research this, please?

    So far as I can see there is no journal article or reported case which refers to that section.

    I don't see that the section has anything to do with the validity of the marriage.

    I think the section is getting at the following:

    1) At one point it was not legal to get married except in the district in which one or both of the parties resided (see the snappily named 'An act to provide for the solemnization of marriages in the district in or near which the Parties reside'), except in certain circumstances. You could check when that changed but I would guess it was after 1911. The registrar was not permitted to marry persons not from that district unless (it seems) all the chapels in their district were in disrepair or the vicar was dead or some other such reason.

    2) You can imagine that if two individuals eloped, they might want to get married in a district in which neither resided. And in order to do that, they would need to give a false statement to the registrar that one or both of them *did* live in the district (both at the ceremony and for the purpose of publishing the banns).

    3) *This* is the type of statement that section is dealing with. It is a false statement made *for the purpose of procuring any marriage out of the district in which the parties or one of them dwell* when the parties would not otherwise be entitled to get married in that district.

    So far as I know there is no longer any rule restricting where people get married, so s 3(2) is an artefact and of no relevance.

    All imo from my own researches just now - I've never looked at it before and happy to be corrected.
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 7, 2018
Have you ever experienced racism/sexism at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.