Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shaped the court's reasoning:

• Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474: Established the non-compellability of a spouse as a witness, a principle later codified in Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Puttick [1981] QB 767: Demonstrated that absolute statutory duties could be limited by public policy exceptions, particularly when enforcing the duty would facilitate serious crimes.
• R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith [1991] 2 QB 393: Applied the Puttick principle to restrict the Registrar General's absolute duties based on public policy, especially to prevent individuals from benefiting from their criminal actions.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into whether public policy exceptions could override the Registrar General's absolute duty under the Marriage Act 1949 (as amended by the Marriage Act 1983). The appellant, the CPS, argued that allowing the marriage would obstruct the course of justice by making B a non-compellable witness, thus impeding the prosecution's case against J.

However, the Court of Appeal held that while public policy exceptions exist, they should not be broadly interpreted to interfere with statutory duties unless absolutely necessary. The court emphasized that Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act creates a clear immunity for spouses, and the Registrar General's duty to issue marriage certificates should not be impeded by attempts to manipulate this legal provision.

Lord Justice Waller, delivering the judgment, concluded that the Registrar General and the Director of Prisons do not possess the authority to impose additional public policy constraints on their statutory duties in the context of marriage registrations. The court underscored that Parliament intended these duties to be absolute, and any desire to restrict them further should be addressed through legislative changes rather than judicial reinterpretation.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the principle that statutory duties, particularly those related to civil procedures like marriage registrations, are to be upheld unless explicit exceptions are provided by clear legislative intent. It restricts the ability of prosecutorial bodies to influence personal civil rights through public policy arguments in judicial reviews.

Future cases involving similar conflicts between statutory duties and perceived public policy concerns will likely reference this decision, emphasizing the need for legislative clarity when intending to limit absolute statutory obligations. Additionally, it highlights the boundaries of judicial intervention in balancing civil rights against prosecutorial aims.

Section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

This section stipulates that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner in court, effectively granting marital immunity. This means that if two individuals are married, one cannot be forced to provide evidence against the other during legal proceedings.

Public Policy Exception

In legal terms, public policy exceptions allow courts to override statutory duties if enforcing them would contravene established societal norms or lead to unjust outcomes. However, this exception is applied sparingly and typically requires strong justification.

Absolute Duty

An absolute duty refers to a legal obligation that must be followed without exception. In this case, the Registrar General has an absolute duty to issue marriage certificates when statutory requirements are met, and this duty cannot be overridden by external policy considerations unless explicitly permitted by law.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a process by which courts assess the legality of decisions or actions taken by public bodies. In J v. B, the CPS sought judicial review to compel the Registrar General to delay issuing a marriage certificate.