In this essay it will first define what Bigamy is, which will ultimately help shape the understanding of the offence. This essay will then begin to focus on explaining the components of the offence. In order to address this, it will look in detail on a variety of cases about the lacking nature of Section 57. Subsequently, this essay will cover critically on the section 57 of the offences Against the Person Act 1861, clearly arguing on the obscure wording of the statue and how the judges can use a range of rules to apply to help make sense of legislation. Firstly, bigamy ‘is the crime of knowingly marrying a person when already married to another. It is punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment’ (McFarquhar, 2011, p.20). It is not a worldwide …show more content…
However he argued that his wife refused to sign the divorce papers. Nevertheless, he could have been entitled to a statement based on irretrievable breakdown. In contrast R v Tolson (1889) is more complex in trying to find a straight forward understanding. To summarize she believed her husband has been dead for seven years. She married again prior to the fact she is already married and during this time, her husband turns up. As Kenny (2015, p.16) puts it “a crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act in question be innocent’. Since she did not have the intention to do something wrong the court gave her the defense of mistake. To expand, for a criminal offence mental elements are required however, how can they be applied to bigamy? Well According to Fraser (1976, cited in Ormenerod 2012) he is trying to get across that there is no mental element in the case R v Tolson other than the intention to go through a marriage …show more content…
This is especially presented in bigamy section 57. However, the meaning can become clear despite the piece of legislation not being renewed. As Twining and Miers (2010:342) states ‘shall marry is ambiguous…the interpretation is a possible one’. This means the judges will be left to interpret the stature related to the case in order to provide a normal reasonable outcome which can be achieved, but only with great care. According to Ormerod (2012: 274) he highlights there are a very small number of court of appeals that make decisions on the correct approach for sentencing bigamy. Despite this being said, the courts are able to refer to Parliamentary debates recorded in Hansard when they feel the act is open to more than one