Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Published date | 01 January 1955 |
| Date | 01 January 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835501900101 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
XIX. No. 1
JANUARy-MARCH,
1955
Courts
of
Summary Jurisdiction
TENANCY OF A ROOM USED BY A PROSTITUTE
ANunusual case
under
the
Criminal
Law
Amendment
Act, 1885, was decided at Marlborough Street Magistrates'
Court
recently. Adefendant was charged
under
s. 13 (2) of
the
Act with knowingly permitting
part
of certain premises to
be used for
the
purpose of habitual prostitution, he being
the
occupier thereof.
For
the
prosecution, evidence was tendered
that
the
premises consisted of four storeys
and
abasement, and
that
the
defendant held a lease, which was produced, of
the
ground
floor and basement.
There
were two rooms on
the
ground
floor, a front room used legitimately as a workroom, and arear
room,
the
use of which was the subject of
the
proceedings,
both
giving on to a passage which ran from
the
street door to a
yard at
the
rear.
The
basement was reached by means of a
flight of stairs from
the
passage,
and
also by means of steps
from
the
street. In
the
basement
the
defendant conducted a
club.Officers kept observation on three separate days, during
which time aknown prostitute was seen to take a total of 18
different
men
to
the
rear room on
the
ground floor.
On
one or
two occasions
the
defendant was seen at or near
the
front door
when
the
woman either entered or left with a man, and it was
stated
that
on at least one occasion he spoke to
her
near
the
street door.
When
Police went to
the
premises with awarrant on
zoth
August
the
defendant was found in his club in
the
base-
ment, and after being cautioned
and
hearing
the
warrant read,
he said, "Yes, Ihold
the
lease of
the
upstairs room
but
I do
not
control it. It is managed by my agents. I have complained
2
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
to
them
about
the
room. I have told
them
to get
rid
of
her
and
to accept no
more
rent
from
her."
He
was taken to
the
room
where
the
woman was found
with
apartly dressed
man
who
admitted having gone
there
for sexual intercourse.
The
woman
refused to say to
whom
she paid rent.
At
the
conclusion of
the
case for
the
prosecution, counsel
defending
submitted
that
there
was no case for
the
defendant
to answer.
He
said
that
the
two
ground
floor rooms were in
similar case.
The
front room was let for legitimate business
purposes
and
had
any charge been
made
in respect of
that
user,
the
defendant could
not
have been said to have been in
occupation. Similarly,
there
was no evidence
that
he was in
occupation of
the
rear room. Counsel pointed
out
that
there
was no statutory definition of occupation,
and
said
that
to
create criminal liability, there
must
nevertheless be some
immediate control.
He
cited Siviour v. Neapolitano (1931 1
K.B.
636) for
the
proposition
that
awoman to
whom
it
had
been alleged in cross-examination
the
defendant
had
let
the
room
under
atenancy agreement, was
the
true
occupier.
In
reply,
the
prosecuting solicitor
admitted
that
where a
genuine tenancy
had
been created,
the
landlord could
not
properly be charged
under
s. 13 (2)
and
pointed
out
that
s. 13 (3) was
not
appropriate to these circumstances, as only
one woman was using
the
room.
He
submitted, however,
that
the
fact
that
the
defendant,
when
charged,
had
said
"I
took
steps to get
rid
of
her
as soon as I found
what
she was
doing"
was sufficient to call
upon
him
for an explanation.
The
magistrate so ruled.
Evidence for
the
defence was given by
the
defendant, who
produced
atenancy agreement in respect of
the
room in
question between himself
and
awoman different from
the
woman
using
the
room.
He
also
produced
statements
of
account from his agents to
whom
the
rent
was paid
and
references which he said
had
been
submitted
to
him
on behalf
of
the
tenant
Before
the
tenancy was created.
He
related
the
steps he
had
taken, on
the
advice of his agents, to get rid
of
the
woman in question before
the
Police executed
the
warrant,
and
stated
that
he
had
instructed
them, shortly after
the
last
rent
had
been paid on r
zth
August, to accept no more
rent
in
respect of
the
room.
He
also said
that
he
had
no key to
the
room,
and
had
no right to
enter
it.
Close cross-examination failed to alter his evidence in any
To continue reading
Request your trial