Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836502900403 |
| Published date | 01 October 1965 |
| Date | 01 October 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
SEPARATE LETTINGS CONSTITUTING A BROTHEL
Donovan o, Gavin
IN the above case (19652
All
E.R. 611) the Court held that a
landlord who permits tenants to operate together as
prostitutes cannot excuse himself by proving that he granted
separate tenancies to each woman in ignorance of the purpose
for which they intended to use the accommodation.
On the 25 June 1964 a sergeant of the Metropolitan police
preferred an information against the defendant before Middle-
sex justices sitting at Highbury that on five consecutive days
in June 1964 he, being the landlord of certain premises in
Hornsey part of which was used as a brothel, was wilfully a
party to that use continuing contrary to s.34 of the Sexual
Offences Act 1956.
This
section, which re-enacted provisions
previously to be found in
S.13
of the Criminal Law Amend-
ment Act 1885, provides
that-
"It
is an offence for the lessor or landlord of premises or
his agent to let the whole or part of the premises with the
knowledge that it is to be used in whole or part as a brothel
or where the whole or part of the premises is used as a
brothel to be wilfully a party to that use continuing."
The
justices found that the defendant had been wilfully a
party to the continuance of the use of the premises as a brothel
and imposed a fine of £50 and costs. On the defendant taking
the case to Middlesex Quarter Sessions this decision was
reversed and the defendant was awarded costs of his appeal.
The
prosecutor then appealed by case stated in which the
following facts were
found:-
That
for some years prior to June 1964 the defendant had
been the owner of the house in question, residing in a self-
contained flat on the ground floor at the back of the house.
That
he had let the remaining rooms on separate weekly
tenancies giving each tenant a key to the front door.
That
252
DIVISIONAL
COURT
CASES 253
there were two front rooms on the ground floor one of which
was let to a woman named Mills and the other to a woman
named Yettram.
That
at the back of the house on the ground
floor a room was let to a woman named Conway. Each of these
women was a common prostitute. Quarter Sessions further
found
that
each letting was made separately and was not a
subterfuge to evade the provisions of s.34 of the Act. During
the five days when the police had kept observation on the
premises 38 different men had entered the house being admit-
ted
by one or other of the women. Yettram and Mills had
solicited men together both in nearby streets and from the
doorway of the house and on one occasion sexual intercourse
had taken place between Yettram and a man in Mills' room
after he had knocked on Mills' window which was separated
from the street by a garden.
The
defendant got to know that
the women were using their rooms for prostitution before these
incidents occurred
but
after the lettings had been effected.
Quarter Sessions gave as their reason for allowing the afpeal
that
there was insufficient evidence of common user 0any
part of the premises to destroy the effect of the separate let-
tings,
On the 29 and 30 April 1965 the appeal of the prosecutor
came before a Divisional Court consisting of Lord Parker C.
J.,
Sachs and Browne
JJ.
The
first judgment was delivered by
Sachs J. who after stating the facts above summarised, con-
sidered the relevant authorities.
In
Durose 'V Wilson (1907 71
J.P.
263) the Court had had to consider whether premises had
been let with knowledge that they were to be used as a brothel.
In
that case a large house having one street door had been
divided into 18 flats 12of which were let to known prostitutes.
There
was no evidence as to which flat was occupied by which
woman.
The
street door was controlled by a porter who ad-
mitted the women and the men they brought with them.
The
Court dismissed an appeal against a conviction for knowingly
letting the premises for use as a brothel. With that case his
Lordship contrasted Strath 'V Foxon (20
J.C.L.
42; 1956 1
Q.B. 67) where two prostitutes occupied separate flats on
different floors of a house, sharing a kitchen. Each took a
number of men into her own flat.
The
magistrate after hearing
the evidence and inspecting the premises found that there was
no common user of the premises and accordingly the premises
did not constitute abrothel. His Lordship said that it did not
To continue reading
Request your trial