Comment
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839706100405 |
| Date | 01 November 1997 |
| Published date | 01 November 1997 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
COMMENT
EXPANDING
THE
DEFINITION
OF PROSTITUTION
In the case of RvMcFarlane (1994) 99 Cr App R 8; 58 JCL 374 the
Court of Appeal had to decide whether the term 'prostitute' was
sufficiently wide to encompass an individual who offered sexual services
for money even if she had no intention of actually providing the services
in question. McFarlane was convicted
of
living on the earnings of
prostitution contrary to s 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. He lived
with a Miss Josephs who, following police observation, was believed to be
operating as a prostitute in the London area. She, however, strongly
denied being a prostitute and claimed that she was engaged in a practice
colloquially known as 'clipping'. Although she admitted that she offered
sexual services for payment, she maintained that she never provided these
services
but
merely took the money in advance, vanished, and left her
unsuspecting clients to question their judgment. This appeared to be a
very lucrative venture in that she could earn as much as £400 a night
from it.
At first instance the primary issue was whether McFarlane had
knowingly lived on the earnings of prostitution. Miss Josephs had claimed
to have told McFarlane that she worked as a cloakroom attendant for £50
a week.
It
was submitted by the prosecution that McFarlane must have
known that his partner had more money than could reasonably have been
expected for someone on such a wage. Furthermore, there was evidence
from two police officers who claimed to have observed McFarlane driving
Josephs to a street in the West End of London at night on three separate
occasions.
It
still, however, had to be established that McFarlane was
living off Joseph's earnings as a prostitute. As a matter of law, counsel
for both the prosecution and defence agreed that 'clipping' did not amount
to prostitution and that, if Josephs had indeed not provided any sexual
services, McFarlane could
not
be convicted under s 30 of the Sexual
Offences Act 1956. The judge rejected this notion and, in his summing up
to the jury, commented thus:
Miss Josephs said, 'Yes, I do otTer sexual services, but I do not mean to
make that otTer good'. And she suggests to you that for that reason she is
not a prostitute. But, members of the jury, she has made the
otTer.
It
is at
that point that she is a prostitute. The fact that the otTer is bogus, rather
than genuine, if it was, is neither here nor there
...
There are not two
categories-a
clipper and a prostitute. There are prostitutes who are honest
and prostitutes who are dishonest. Miss Josephs tells you that she is a
dishonest prostitute. But she is a prostitute, members of the jury.
McFarlane was duly convicted and sentenced to four months' imprison-
ment.
435
To continue reading
Request your trial