Case Summary
| Citation | Smith v. Huhges (1960) 1 W.L.R. 830 |
| Keywords | prostitute, section 1(1) of Street Offences Act, 1959, solicitation |
| Facts | In each case, the defendants, though not physically present on the street, were located within the houses bordering it. One defendant, positioned on a balcony, drew the attention of men below by tapping and calling to them. Other defendants operated from ground-floor windows, some closed and others partially open, while another defendant worked from a first-floor window. All defendants, common prostitutes, were charged with street solicitation and subsequently fined by the magistrate. |
| Issues | Whether in those circumstances each defendant was soliciting in a street or public place? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The court said that the section does not explicitly state that the person who is soliciting must be on the street, nor that the person who receives solicitation must be on the streets. This Act is meant to clean up the streets so that people can walk without being molested. The court stated that the defendant solicits by tapping on the windowpane, and if the window is open, gives invitations by way of signals. Thus, the court held that in each case, her solicitation is directed towards and addressed to someone walking on the street. |
| Judgement | The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of Magistrate. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
LORD PARKER C. J. – These are six appeals by way of case stated by one of the stipendiary magistrates sitting at Bow Street, before whom informations were preferred by police officers against the defendants, in each case that she “being a common prostitute, did solicit in a street for the purpose of prostitution, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Street Offences Act, 1959”. The magistrate in each case found that the defendant was a common prostitute, that she had solicited and that the solicitation was in a street, and in each case fined the defendant.
The defendants in each case were not themselves physically in the street but were in a house adjoining the street. In one case the defendant was on a balcony and she attracted the attention of men in the street by tapping and calling down to them. In other cases the defendants were in ground-floor windows, either closed or half open, and in another case in a first-floor window.
The sole question here is whether in those circumstances each defendant was soliciting in a street or public place. The words of section 1 (1) of the Act of 1959 are in this form : “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”. Observe that it does not say there specifically that the person who is doing the soliciting must be in the street. Equally, it does not say that it is enough if the person who receives the solicitation or to whom it is addressed is in the street. For my part, I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or is standing in a doorway or on a balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street. For my part, I am content to base my decision on that ground and that ground alone. I think the magistrate came to a correct conclusion in each case, and that these appeals should be dismissed.
HILBERY, J. – I agree 39 Curzon Street, from the papers in front of us, appears to be let to prostitutes who practise their profession from that address, and the way of practising it is shown by the cases stated, as my Lord has said, and in one case by tapping on the window pane with some metal object as men passed by in the street in front of her, and then openly inviting them into her room. In the other cases it was done by tapping on the windows of various rooms occupied by these prostitutes and then, if the window was open, giving invitations by way of solicitation or signals representing solicitation. In each case signals were intended to solicit men passing by in the street.
They did effect solicitation of the men when they reached those men. At that moment the person in the street to whom the signal was addressed was solicited and, being solicited in the street, I agree with the conclusion of my Lord and for these reasons I have intimated I agree that these appeals must be dismissed.
