Dear Mrs Macaulay,

My sister just found out that the man she married two and a half years ago has been married for 19 years. They both live in New York and got married in Jamaica. I didn’t know that things like that could pass the Registrar General’s Department (RGD), since both weddings were in Jamaica.
Can she sue the wedding planner or the RGD? The wedding planner took care of everything. The two wives called the police on him, together.

What happened to your sister is terrible in so many ways. You say that you did not know how such things could ‘pass’ the RGD, and you seem to be placing the legal responsibility on the RGD to check that parties wishing to marry are single and can lawfully marry. You seem to have forgotten that it is the parties themselves who each solemnly declare to the marriage officer and in the presence of their witnesses that “I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I (full name) may not be joined in matrimony to (full name).” After this, they each would call on those present to witness that they each take the other to be their lawful wife/husband. This is provided in section 27 of the Marriage Act. Section 30 provides that the marriage officer who is to solemnise the marriage must ask the parties the particulars which are required in law regarding the marriage to be registered. So the duty of the marriage officer is to record what he/she is told by the parties for his/her marriage register book, and which shall be signed at the end of the ceremony by the officer and the parties and their witnesses. A duplicate of such entries with the signatures shall be delivered by the marriage officer to the registrar general, and a certified copy must be given to one of the parties.

The same Act in section 66 says that the man your sister married, as he went through the marriage ceremony with her, knowing that he was still married, and also knowing that your sister believed that their marriage ceremony was valid, is liable to imprisonment for 10 years pursuant to this section of the Act. Section 65 of the said Marriage Act provides that your sister, if she had known that the man was still a married man and knowing this went through the marriage ceremony, would be guilty of a misdemeanour (a lesser offence) as her knowledge would not amount to bigamy, but his would. Note that there is no provision which makes the RGD legally liable for any bigamy. The persons so liable are obviously the still married party and in certain circumstances it could be the other party, if he or she knew the other was still a married person.

The other Act of Parliament which applies in your sister’s situation is the Matrimonial Causes Act and section 4 provides that the Supreme Court may pronounce decrees of nullity of marriages on the ground that they are void. The circumstance relevant to your sister’s case is section 4(1)(a), the first ground which reads, “one of the parties to the marriage had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage”. Clearly this section applies to the man that your sister believed she was lawfully marrying. He cannot said that he did not know he was married. I do hope that they do not have any children. He is clearly a bigamist and your sister can apply to have their “marriage” pronounced as a void marriage by the court.

Then finally, my last reference to an Act of Parliament —the Offences Against the Person Act. Section 71 of this Act deals specifically with the offence/crime of bigamy. This is that a person who is married and who marries any other person during the lifetime of the former wife, whether the second marriage took place here in Jamaica or somewhere else, shall be guilty of a felony and on being convicted, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a maximum term of four years and the trial can take place in the parish in which the offender is arrested. This section would not apply if the second marriage ceremony did not take place in Jamaica and the party is a Commonwealth citizen; or if the married party and his wife have lived apart continually for seven years preceding the second marriage and he did not know the first spouse was still alive at the time of his second marriage. It does not seem that your sister’s “husband” can fit within the protection of this proviso. This section also provides that the husband or wife of a person charged with bigamy can be called as a witness for the prosecution or the defence and without the consent of the person charged.

So I see no legal provision which makes the RGD responsible to act to prevent bigamy from occurring. There is no legal basis on which your sister can successfully sue that office for the clear wrongful act of her “husband”. The laws make it clear that the responsibility rests on the party who has the guilty knowledge of their previous marriage and that that spouse is still alive. You are wrong to ascribe blame to that office.

What then about the wedding planner? This is a recent contractual creation and there is no specific legal provision relating to such a person. The ground on which your sister could sue such a person must therefore be based on the contract terms. I must remind you again that the legal provisions place the responsibility about the status of the parties with them. So if the contract did not cover the duty of the planner to check the legal status of the parties, I see no ground for your sister to successfully sue the planner.

The person responsible is the man she married who has committed the offences as I have illustrated above, and your sister can sue him for any and all her financial losses and any emotional and mental anguish she has suffered and for which she had to pay for treatment/therapy. It is very good that both she and the existing wife reported the matter to the police, and the New York prosecutor would decide to prosecute him for bigamy and any other offence(s) as we have here in our laws).

I trust that I have clarified the position for you and your sister.

Margarette May Macaulay is an attorney-at-law, Supreme Court mediator, notary public, and women’s and children’s rights advocate. Send questions via e-mail to
allwoman@jamaicaobserver.com;
or write to All Woman, 40-42 1/2 Beechwood Avenue, Kingston 5. All responses are published. Mrs Macaulay cannot provide personal responses.

DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this article are for informational purposes only and must not be relied upon as an alternative to legal advice from your own attorney.