babylonboy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
Yeah, I think that is meant to stop laws being used in relation for activities that they clearly were not intended to apply to, or conversely to allow them to be used in cases where a semantic technicality might allow someone to absurdly get off the hook:
In this case, the law would be used to stop people from producing, selling or using LSD analogues, which is what it was intended to do. Whether or not they meant any of the nitrogen atoms or the one I assumed they were referring to seems moot.The court applies the golden rule in Adler v George (1964). Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than 'in the vicinity' of it, at the time of obstruction. The courts had to determine whether “in [the] vicinity of” included on/in the premises. The court applied the golden rule. The court said the in the vicinity did include on or in as well. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. The defendant’s conviction was therefore upheld.