Law

Homework
September 22, 2023

Shaw v DPP

Facts
The defendant created magazines, which contained personal adverts for prostitutes. This
included their personal contact details, photographs and descriptions of their services. The
solicitation of prostitution was now illegal by virtue of the Street Offences Act 1959. The
defendant also received money from the prostitutes for the directory; thus, he was living on the
earnings of prostitutes. The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as
well as acting contrary to s30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (living on the earnings of
prostitution) and s2 of the Obscene Publications act 1959 (publishing an obscene article).

Issues
The defendant appealed the conviction of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, arguing that this
was not a charge recognised by the law of England. The issue for the Court was whether there
was a charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and if the court had the discretion to create
such an offence.

Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. The Court found the defendant’s
decision to feature prostitute adverts in his magazines as dangerous to the welfare of society and
it was their duty to protect the public majority’s morals, as well as safety and order. This meant
that the Court was able to create offences in order to adapt to changing standards in life and in
regard to the values and morals of society. Thus, this case created the new offence of conspiracy
to corrupt public morals and established that an offence that was not written in criminal statute
could be recognised as a legal charge.

Knuller vs DPP

Facts

The defendant was the director of a company, which published regular magazines for
distribution. Inside the magazines, there was a page that had columns to advertise homosexual
practices. It was concluded that this information encouraged males to meet up and engage in
homosexual activity. The defendant was convicted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals.
Issues

The defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. This was on the
issue of whether there was an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals recognized by the
law of England and if he could be convicted of such an offence.

Decision/Outcome

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. The law does recognise conspiracy to
corrupt public morals as an offence, as this was created by Shaw v DPP and this was to be
followed. This case established that the courts has a duty to protect society’s morals and can
enforce their own decisions. Lord Reid commented that he did not agree with the Shaw v DPP
verdict and he had dissented in that case, but he also did not wish to reconsider this decision now.
He stated that while decisions are not always binding on other courts, there is a need for certainty
in the law that means not every disagreeable decision should be reversed. The courts now have
no power to create new criminal offences and can only be created by Parliament.