What was the central question in R. v. Oakes (1959)?

Whether doing an act preparatory to an Official Secrets offence is itself an offence under Section 7, and if the word ‘and’ should be read as ‘or’ to make the clause work.

How did the court read the word ‘and’?

The Court of Criminal Appeal read ‘and’ as ‘or’ to avoid absurdity and to match the law’s purpose.

Why is this case important for statutory interpretation?

It shows courts can adjust connectors like ‘and/or’ when the literal reading defeats common sense and legislative intent.

What happened to the accused’s conviction?

The conviction was upheld because preparatory acts were treated as an offence under Section 7.

Which principle did the court rely on?

The avoidance of absurdity principle—choosing an interpretation that keeps the statute sensible and workable.

R. v. Oakes (1959) 2 All ER 92

Court building symbolizing R. v. Oakes (1959) case

```

Quick Summary

This case explains how courts handle awkward wording in a criminal statute. Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920 lists different ways a person can be guilty. The phrase used “and does any act preparatory to…”. Read literally, it confused the sequence and made the clause clumsy. The Court of Criminal Appeal read “and” as “or” to keep the law sensible. It held that preparing to commit an Official Secrets offence is itself an offence. The accused’s conviction was therefore upheld.

CASE_TITLE: R. v. Oakes (1959) 2 All ER 92 • Slug: r-v-oakes-1959-2-all-er-92 • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31

Issues

Does a preparatory act amount to an offence under Section 7 of the 1920 Act?
Should the word “and” in “and does any act preparatory to” be read as “or” so that the clause has a clear, workable meaning?

Rules

Avoid absurdity: If two readings are possible, choose the one that avoids nonsense and keeps the statute effective.
Penal statutes & purpose: Even in criminal contexts, interpretation should fit the legislature’s aim and produce a fair, workable result.

Here, that meant reading “and” as “or”.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for the facts in R. v. Oakes (1959)

The accused was charged under Section 7, Official Secrets Act, 1920.

The section covers attempts, soliciting/inciting, aiding/abetting, and doing any act preparatory to offences under the 1911 or 1920 Acts.

He was convicted at trial and appealed, focusing on how the clause with “and” should be read.

Arguments

Appellant

Read the list literally: “and” means conjunctive; the clause is too uncertain to convict for mere preparation.
Criminal laws should be clear; doubtful wording should favour the accused.

Respondent (Crown)

To give the section sense, read “and” as “or”; each item is a separate way to offend.
Otherwise, preparatory acts fall through a gap, harming the statute’s purpose.

Judgment

Held: The Court of Criminal Appeal substituted “or” for “and” in the phrase “and does any act preparatory to…”. The change was needed to give the clause clear meaning and to keep Section 7 effective.

Result: A preparatory act towards an Official Secrets offence is an offence. The conviction was upheld.

Ratio

When the plain wording creates confusion or absurdity, the court may adjust connectors like “and/or” to match the statute’s purpose, especially where public safety and national security are involved.

Why It Matters

Shows a pragmatic approach to penal statutes without undermining fairness.
Prevents loopholes where preparation for serious offences could escape liability.
Useful illustration of the absurdity-avoidance principle in statutory interpretation.

Key Takeaways

“And” may be read as “or” where needed to keep the law sensible and complete.
Preparatory acts can be independently punishable under Section 7.
Purpose and workability guide interpretation in criminal statutes.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Prep OR Peril” — Preparatory acts count, so read “and” as “OR” to avoid public peril.

Spot the clause: “and does any act preparatory to…”.
Switch to “or” to make each limb stand alone.
Secure the purpose: no loophole for preparation.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a preparatory act an offence under Section 7, and should “and” read as “or”?

Rule

Choose the reading that avoids absurdity and fits legislative intent, even in penal statutes.

Application

“And” would cripple the clause. Reading it as “or” preserves each mode of liability, including preparation.

Conclusion

“And” becomes “or”; preparatory acts are punishable; conviction stands.

Glossary

Preparatory act: A step taken before the main offence, showing movement towards the crime.
Absurdity rule: Courts avoid readings that make a law unworkable or senseless.
Legislative intent: The purpose or aim the law was designed to achieve.