446 ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS [1961] 2 All E.R, SHAW v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. [House or Lorps (Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Hodson), March 13, 14, 16, 16, 20, 21, 22, May 4, 1961.] Oriminal Law—Conspiracy—Conspiracy to corrupt public morals—Whether an indictable misdemeanour at common law—Whether s. 2 (4) of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959 (7 & 8 Bliz. 2c. 66), prohibited prosecution, Oriminal Law—Prostitution—Living on earnings of prostitution—Publication containing advertisements by prostitutes published with object of enabling prostitutes to carry on their trade—Whether living on profits derived therefrom was living on earnings of prostitution—Sexual Offences Act, 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz. 2 ¢. 69), 8. 30. ‘The appellant, with the object of aasisting prostitutes to ply their trade, published a magazine called “‘ Ladies Directory ”. It contained the names, addresses and telephone numbers of prostitutes with photographs of nude fomale figures, and in some cases details which conveyed to initiates willing- ness to indulge not only in ordinary sexual intercourse but also in various perverse practices. The appellant received fecs from the prostitutes whom he canvassed and advertised and the prostitutes paid for advertise- ments out of the earnings of their profession and some of them obtained custom by means of the advertisements. The appellant also derived profit from the magazine from certainly one person to whom he sold copies for re-sale. On appeal against conviction (i) of conspiring with others to corrupt public morals by means of the “ Ladies Directory”, and (ii) of living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, contrary to . 30 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, Held: (i) (orp Rem dissenting) (a) an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed at common law, and (per Lorp Tucker, Lorp Morris or Borrn-y-Gzsr and Lorp Hopson concurring) was indictable as a conspiracy to commit a wrongful act which was calculated to cause public injury or, possibly, as a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence, the criminal offence being conduct calculated and intended to corrupt public morals (see p. 451, letter I, to p. 452, letter A, and p. 466, letter C, post). R. v. Newland ({1953] 2 All E.R. 1067); R. v. Delaval ((1763), 3 Burr. 1434); R.v. Mears d Chalk (1861), 4 Cox, C.C, 423); R. v. Howell ((1864), 4F. & F. 160); and R. v. Berg, Britt, Carré ds Lummies, (1927), 20 Cr. App. Rep. 38) applied. (b) section 2 (4) of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, did not prohibit the prosecution of the appellant therefor because the offence alleged, the conspiracy to corrupt public morals, did not “consist of the publication ” of the magazine but consisted of an agreement to corrupt public morals by means of the magazine (see p. 466, letter F, post); and the appellant had been rightly convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Gi) (a) (per Viscount Stuonps; Lorp Tucker, Lor Morris or Borta-x- Gzsr and Lorp Hopson concurring) a person “ lived . . . on the earnings of prostitution ”, within the meaning of 8, 30 (1) of tho Sexual Offences Act, 1956, if he was paid by prostitutes for goods or services which were supplied by him to them for the purpose of their prostitution and which he would not have supplied but for the fact that they were prostitutes (see p. 450, letter D, post); and, by making » business of accepting these advertisements for reward the appellant had knowingly lived in part on the earnings of prostitution. R. v. Thomas ([1957] 2 All E.R. 342) considered. (b) (per Lorp Rem) the words “living on” normally connoted living paresitically, and the appellant was living on the earnings of prostitution since his occupation of gathering and publishing the advertisements would A B EAL. SHAW ». DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 447 not have existed if his customers were not prostitutes (see p. 453, letter H, to p. 454, lotter B, post). Decision of the Covrr or Crminat ArrEat (sub nom. R, v. Shaw) ({1961] 1 All E.R. 330) affirmed. [ Editorial Note. On the approach that should be made towards relating the application of common law offences to the changing standards of life in succeeding generations, reference may be made particularly to the opinions of Viscount Stmonps at p. 452, letter G, to p. 453, letter B, post, and of Lop ‘Tucxer, citing por Parxe, J., in Mirehouse v. Rennell ((1833), 1 Cl. & Fin, at p. 646), at p. 465, letter H, to p. 466, letter B, post. As to criminal conspiracy affecting public morals and decency, see 10 Hars- sury’s Laws (3rd Edn.) 313, para. 570, note (e); and for cases on the subject, see 14 Diaxer (Repl.) 129, 130, 916-919. As to living on immoral earnings, see 10 Harspury’s Laws (3rd Edn.) 676, para, 1294; and for cases on the subject, see 15 Dicesr (Repl.) 1023, 1024, 10,052-10,057. For the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, s. 30, see 36 Harssury’s Srarures (2nd Edn.) 232, For the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, s. 2, see 39 Harssury’s SraTures (2nd Edn.) 269.] Cases referred to: Bowman v. Secular Society, Ltd., (1917] A.C. 406; 86 L.J.Ch, 568; 117 L.T. 161; 16 Digest (Repl.) 880, 8489. Calvert v. Mayes, [1954] 1 All E.R. 41; [1954] 1 Q.B. 342; 118 J.P. 76; [1954] 2 W.LR. 18; 16 Digest (Repl.) 1023, 10,053. Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co., Ltd. v. Veitch, [1942] 1 All BR. 142; [1942] A.C, 435; 111 L.J.P.C. 17; 166 L.T. 172; 2nd Digest Supp. Grey's (Lord) Case, (1682), 9 State Tr. 127; Skin. 61; 90 E.R. 29; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 916. Jones v. Randall, (1774), 1 Cowp. 17; Lofft 383; 98 E.R. 944, 706; 22 Digest Repl.) 289, 2942, Mirehouse v. Rennell, (1833), 1 Cl. & Fin, 527; 7 Bli. N.S. 241; 8 Bing. 490; 1 Moo. & 8. 683; 6 E.R. 1015; 19 Digest 229, 70. Mogut 8.8. Oo. v. McGregor, Gow & Oo., [1892] A.C. 25; 61 L.J.Q.B, 295; 66 L.-T. 1; 565.P. 101; 7 Asp. M.L.C. 120; 43 Digest 10, 51. Pearce v. Brooks, (1866), L.R. 1 Exch, 213; 36 L.J.Ex. 134; 14 LT. 288; 30 J.P. 295; 12 Digest (Repl.) 204, 2264. Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495; 70 L.J-P.C. 76; 86 L.T. 289; 65 J.P. 708; 14 Digest (Repl.) 123, 860. R. v. Bassey, (1931), 47 T.L.R. 222; 22 Cr. App. Rep. 160; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 911. R. v. Berg, Britt, Carré d Lummies, (1927), 20 Cr. App. Rep. 38; 15 Digest (Repl) 902, 8702. R. v. Brailsford, [1905] 2 K.B. 730; 75 L.J.K.B. 64; 93 L.T. 401; 69 J.P. 370; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 909. R. v. Ourl, (1727), 2 Stra. 788; 1 Barn. K.B. 29; 17 State Tr. 163; 93 E.R. 849; 15 Digest (Repl.) 895, 8624, R. v. Dale, (1960), Central Criminal Court, unreported. R. v. Delaval, (1763), 3 Burr. 1434; 1 Wm. Bl. 439; 97 E.R. 913; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 918. R. v. Higgins, (1801), 2 East, 6; 102 E.R. 269; 14 Digest (Repl.) 119, 822. Bz. R. B. . v. Howell, (1864), 4 F. & F. 160; 176 E.R. 613; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 919. Vv. Mears & Chalk, (1861), 2 Den, 79; 20 L.J.M.C. 59; 16 L-T.0.8. 6153. 15 J.P. 81; 4 Cox, C.C. 423; 169 E.R, 426; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 917. . v. Newland, [1953] 2 All E.R. 1067; [1954] 1 Q.B, 158; 117 J.P. 573; 37 Cr. App. Rep. 154; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 826; 15 Digest (Repl.) 913, 8787.448 ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS [1961] 2 AN E.R. R. v. Porter, [1910] 1 K.B. 369; 79 L.J.K.B, 241; 102 L.T. 255; 74 J.P. 159; 22 Cox, C.C. 205; 3 Cr. App. Rep. 237; 14 Digest (Repl.) 129, 908, BR. v. Saunders, (1875), 1 Q.B.D. 15; 45 L.J.M.C. 11; 33 L.T. 677; 13 Cox, C. 116; 15 Digest (Repl.) 894, 8620. : R. v. Sidley, (1663), 1 Sid, 168; 82 E.R. 1036; sub nom. Sydlyes’ Case, 1 Keb. 620; 83 E.R. 1146; 15 Digest (Repl.) 892, 8596. R. v. Silver, [1956] 1 All E.R. 716; 120.J.P. 233; 40 Cr. App. Rep. 32; [1956] 1 W.LR. 281; 3rd Digest Supp. R. v. Thomas, [1957] 2 All E.R. 181; 41 Cr. App. Rep. 117; [1957] 1 W.LR. iffa. C.C.A., [1957] 2 AN E.R. 342; 121 J.P. 338; 41 Cr. App. Rep. 1957] 1 W.L.R. 1091; 3rd Digest Supp. Richardson v. Mellish, (1824), 2 Bing. 229; 9 Moore C.P. 485; 1 C. & P. 241; 3 L.J.0.8.C.P. 265; 130 E.R. 294; 12 Digest (Repl.) 270, 2078. Upfill v. Wright, [1911] 1 K.B. 606; 80 L.J.K.B. 254; 103 L.'T. 834; 12 Digest (Repl.) 309, 2379. Appeal. Appeal by Frederick Charles Shaw from an order of the Court of Criminal Appeal (Lonp Parker, C.J., SramatvEmp and Aszworrs, JJ,), dated Dec. 21, 1960, and reported sub nom. R. v. Shaw, [1961] 1 All E.R. 330, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against his conviction at the Central Criminal Court on Sept. 21, 1960, before the commissioner (Judge Maxwett-Tourner) and a jury on three counts, namely: 1. Conspiring to corrupt public morals by means of @ magazine entitled “ Ladies Directory”; 2. Living wholly or in part on tho earnings of prostitution, contrary to 8. 30 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956; 3. Publishing an obscene article, namely, an edition of “ Ladies Directory No. 9” contrary to s. 2 (1) of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted by the Court of Criminal Appeal in respect of counts 1 and 2. The facte are set out in tho opinion of Viscount Sraonps. W. R. Rees-Davies and P. S. C. Lewis for the appellant. The Soticitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon, Q.C.), J. H. Buzzard and M. D. L. Worsley for the Crown. ‘Their Lordships took time for consideration. May 4. The following opinions were read. VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, the appellant, Frederick Charles Shaw, was, on Sept. 21, 1960, convicted at tho Central Criminal Court on an indictment containing three counts which alleged the following offences:— (i) conspiracy to corrupt public morals; (ii) living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to 8. 30 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956; and (iii) publishing an obscene publication contrary to s. 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. He appealed ‘against conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal on all three counts. His appeal was dismissed, but that court certified that points of law of general public importance were involved in the decisions on the first and second counts and gave him leave to appeal on them to this House. They refused so to certify in respect of the third count. I propose, my Lords, to deal in this opinion in the first place with the second count, for I have had the privilege of reading the speech which my noble and learned friend, Lorp Tooker, is about to deliver on the first count and go fully agree with him that I find it convenient to add some general observations which can be regarded as supplementary to what he says. ‘My Lords, the particulars of the offence charged in the second count were that, on divers days unknown betwoon Oct. 1, 1959, and July 23, 1960, the appellant lived wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution. Before I refer to the statute on which the charge is based, I must refer briefly to the relevant facta. ‘When the Street Offences Act, 1959, came into operation, it was no longer possible for prostitutes to ply their trade by soliciting in the streets, and it became necessary for them to find some other means of advertising the services that A D E I