Grandfather jailed for bigamy - missing link

[ChrissieL]

Thanks for the summary AVM228
I have been following this fascinating thread with interest although I haven't found anything more than other Rootschatters.  My gg grandmother committed bigamy although she didnt change her name so it was much easier to research.

[ChrissieL]

As a bit of a novice, can I ask a question - if Phyllis Oakley was GRMs first wife, how was she able to marry George Chowns in 1958. Was there a divorce from GRM.  I know he 'married' Nora Reddington in 1945 but surely Phyllis was still legally married to him in 1958?  Or have I missed some info along the way
Chris

[avm228]

As a bit of a novice, can I ask a question - if Phyllis Oakley was GRMs first wife, how was she able to marry George Chowns in 1958. Was there a divorce from GRM.  I know he 'married' Nora Reddington in 1945 but surely Phyllis was still legally married to him in 1958?  Or have I missed some info along the way
Chris

This is a very pertinent question, and one of the reasons I think the 1949 trial records (if available) would be interesting.

At the moment we don't know what the basis of his conviction was.

It may be that the bigamy conviction arose because he was still lawfully married to a living wife when he went through a ceremony of marriage with Phyllis in 1934.  In this case the marriage to Phyllis would be void. The marriage to Nora might also be void, or might be lawful, depending upon whether the mystery first wife was still living on 10 September 1945.

Phyllis on this scenario would not have needed a divorce from GRM (never having been lawfully married to him) prior to her 1958 marriage.

Alternatively there may just have been the two ceremonies of marriage, in which case Phyllis' 1934 marriage would be valid, and Nora's 1945 marriage would be void for bigamy.

Phyllis on this scenario would have needed a divorce from GRM, and if there was one it ought to be reflected in the marital status disclosed on her subsequent marriage. If that's what happened I'm a bit surprised not to see evidence of Nora dragging GRM down the aisle a second time, after his divorce, to make things legal.  On the other hand, the fact that the criminal charge was brought in the 1940s (rather than earlier) may point to the 1945 Nora marriage being the bigamous one.

It is of course possible that one of Phyllis' living children knows whether there was a divorce.

[ljuk]

It's all very convoluted. Marriage law says if your husband (or wife) has "gone missing" and you've not heard from him (her) and maybe he (her) was believed to be dead then after 7 years (statute of limitations) you can legally marry again. This has always been the law. So far as I know.

[alpinecottage]

He hadn't gone missing from his first family though.  He was at the marriage of his eldest son only 2 years before Phyllis remarried.

[avm228]

It's all very convoluted. Marriage law says if your husband (or wife) has "gone missing" and you've not heard from him (her) and maybe he (her) was believed to be dead then after 7 years (statute of limitations) you can legally marry again. This has always been the law. So far as I know.

That (sort of), if the relevant facts can be proved, is a statutory defence to a charge of bigamy (nothing to do with a statute of limitations, though).

However it clearly wasn't a defence available to GRM in 1949, as he was convicted rather than acquitted.

It also would not have been available to Phyllis, as GRM attended their first son's marriage, in Sep qtr 1956, less than two years before her Jun qtr 1958 marriage (as alpinecottage says - sorry, cross-posted).

[ljuk]

It's all very convoluted. Marriage law says if your husband (or wife) has "gone missing" and you've not heard from him (her) and maybe he (her) was believed to be dead then after 7 years (statute of limitations) you can legally marry again. This has always been the law. So far as I know.

That (sort of), if the relevant facts can be proved, is a statutory defence to a charge of bigamy (nothing to do with a statute of limitations, though).

However it clearly wasn't a defence available to GRM in 1949, as he was convicted rather than acquitted.

It also would not have been available to Phyllis, as GRM attended their first son's marriage, in Sep qtr 1956, less than two years before her Jun qtr 1958 marriage (as alpinecottage says - sorry, cross-posted).

"(nothing to do with a statute of limitations, though)"

Why do you say so?

[avm228]

"(nothing to do with a statute of limitations, though)"

Why do you say so?

I can bore you for hours on English law but don't think that's going to be helpful in this quest.

A statute of limitations prescribes an end date at which proceedings can be issued, after the relevant matters have taken place.  It doesn't exist in English criminal law.  If you've committed an offence, you can be prosecuted at any date thereafter. It does, however, exist in English civil law - see the Limitation Act 1980.

The statutory defence to bigamy doesn't tell the Crown that it can't prosecute once a certain time has elapsed after the offence - rather, it prescribes and limits the circumstances in which an offence will have been committed. Quite different things.

Back to the topic...

[ljuk]

But this is the topic ...

Obviously you are better informed than me ... what is the "statutory defence" to bigamy? Pray tell ...