Attorney‐General of Ceylon v. Reid–The Malayan Experience
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Published date | 01 January 1966 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01106.x |
88
TJIE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
29
is concerned with
lawful
tax avoidance, communications received
by him from his client would remain privileged
13;
were a solicitor
to assist
a
client knowingly in
breach
of law, he could, of course, be
compelled to disclose communications made to him.14
P.
E.
I~ILBRIDE.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
OF
CEYLON
2).
REID -T~E
MALAYAN
EXPERIENCE
Attorney-General
of
CeyZon
v.
Reid
is the first case of its kind to
have come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The
question raised was whether
or
not
a
person could be convicted of
bigamy if, during the subsistence of a monogamous marriage, he
is converted to
a
faith which recognises polygamy and goes through
another marriage. The purpose of this note is to draw attention to
two Malayan decisions, unfortunately not cited to the Judicial Com-
mittee, which point to
a
contrary conclusion to that reached by
the Judicial Committee, and to suggest that they are to
be
preferred.
In
Reid's
case, the respondent, who
was
a
Christian domiciled in
Ceylon, first married
a
Christian woman
in
September
1988
under
the Marriage Registration Ordinance of CeylonYa which provided for
monogamous marriages. In June
1969
he embraced the Moslem faith
and in the following month, July, he contractcd
cr
second marriage
with another woman (who was
also
a
Moslem convert) according to
Moslem rites. He was charged under section
862
B
of the Ceylon
Penal Code.*
The Suprcmc Court of Ceylon held that he was not guilty of
bigamy and the Attorney-General appealed to the Judicial Commit-
tee from this decision.
The issue before the Judicial Committee was whether the second
marriage was
or
was not void by reason of its being contracted
during the subsistence of
a
monogamous marriage.
It
was nrgucd
on behalf of the appellant that
as
the parties had contracted
a
monogamous marriage under the Ceylon Marriage Registration
Ordinance, the parties to the marriage had thereby acquired
n
status
to which obligations attached. Accordingly,
a
conversion
to the Moslem faith (which permits polygamy) cannot affect this
18
In the face
of
wide powers veetcd in the Commieeioncr undor Auatrolian tox
legielation,
E.
P.
G.,
h,"
Profeeeional Privile
e
in Relation to Enquiriee by
Comrdieeioner of Taxes (lQ60)
29
A.L.J.
048,
put forward thie conclueion,
which accord6 fully with the later
New
Zealand decision.
14
Communication8 in furtherance
of
fraud
'or
crime
are
not privileged, even
though the eolicitor ie ignorant of the fraud:
R.
v.
COG
and
Railton
(1884) 14
Q.B.D.
163:
Williams
v.
Quebrada
Ru.
Land
Ct
Copper
Co.
[1805]
2
Ch. 761.
1
lUG6
2
W.L.R.
671; [lU66]
1
All
E.R.
812; commented
on
II~
(1066)
28
L.L.k.
404.
2
Cap. 112,
Vol.
V.,
Lo
ielative Enactmente of Ceylon, Revieed
Ed.
19GO.
8
Cop. 19,
Fl.
I, Legiefative Enactmente
of
Ceylon,
Revieed Ed.,
1056.
8.
862
B
rcada: Whoover, having
a
husband
or
wifo living, momee in
any
cam in
which euch marriaqe ie void
by
reaeon
of its taking plaw during
the
life
of
euch hueband
or
wlre living ehell be puniehed.
.
.
."
To continue reading
Request your trial