R v Hassan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Crim J1030-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 8060/68 |
| Date | 30 October 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Crim J1030-1
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Lord Justice Fenton Atkinson
and
Mr. Justice Shaw
No. 8060/68
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. A. M. JONES appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. J. ROCH appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
In November 1968 Peter Raymond Hassan was convicted before the Assistant Recorder of living on the earnings of prostitution and he received a suspended sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. With the leave of the single Judge he now appeals against that conviction.
Three grounds are relied upon by Mr. Jones, to whom, as also to Mr. Roch we are greatly indebted for their submissions. The first one can be speedily disposed of. In order to establish that there was a prostitute with whom this accused man was associating, a police witness was called to say that he had heard a girl named Angela Hopkins plead guilty at the Magistrates Court on a certain date to practising as a prostitute, and he produced a certificate of her ensuing conviction. Mr. Jones says that was all wrong. What should have happened was that evidence should have been adduced of the fact that she was at the material time practising as a prostitute. The fact that she had pleaded guilty to that offence was something which was not evidence against this accused man and the fact that there was a certificate of her conviction for being a prostitute did not cure the irregularity. Mr. Roch has conceded that that is so. Nevertheless, that irregularity can have no impact upon this case for as the trial proceeded it emerged beyond any sort of doubt (a) that Miss Angela Hopkins was a prostitute, and (b) that at the material time she was so practising.
The second point is a bold one. It relates to the nature and location of the burden of proof arising under Section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 which by subsection (1) provides that it is an offence for a man knowingly to live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution. Subsection (2) goes on to provide: "For the purposes of this section a man who lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute, or who exercises control, direction or influence over a prostitute's movements in a way which shows he is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with others, shall be presumed to be knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution, unless he proves the contrary." The learned Assistant Recorder directed the jury that if they were satisfied that this appellant was indeed, during the period assigned in the charge, living with or habitually in the company of Miss Angela Hopkins and were satisfied that she was at that time a prostitute, then their proper course was to act upon the presumption created by the statute, that he was knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution, and so to convict him of the charge laid unless on the balance of probabilities he proved the contrary. Thereby the Assistant Recorder was applying the well-known decision in Carr-Briant, reported in 1943 29 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 76. But Mr. Jones has submitted that this was quite wrong, that all that an accused person is called upon to do by Section 30 is, as it were, to weaken the case of the Crown and if he succeeds in doing that he need do no more. We disagree. For these purposes one must postulate that the Crown has proved that the accused man has at the material time been living with or was habitually in the company of the named, prostitute, and so on. Upon that being established, the presumption arises, and to rebut that presumption the statute imposes upon the accused man that which it in terms says, namely, a duty of proving something. He has to prove the contrary. He has to prove it in a manner different from and less onerous than that which the Crown is required to do when it charges an offence and seeks to establish it. Despite the submission of Mr. Jones, we have no doubt at all that the learned Assistant Recorder was completely right in his direction on that point.
A more difficult and more interesting one is the third. It relates to the matter of calling evidence in support of an alibi and in particular to the provisions of Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 in that regard.
I now turn shortly to the facts. This appellant was charged that on the 29th day of July, 1968, and on other days between that date and the 21st of August, 1968, in the city of Cardiff he knowingly lived wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of Angela Violet Hopkins. The case for the Crown was that at all material times this appellant was living with that prostitute in a flat at 30 Connaught Road, Cardiff. On 29th July police began keeping observation on Miss Hopkins and, as I say, it was not challenged as the trial proceeded that at all material times she was practising her trade. On 2nd August they began observing the premises at 30 Connaught Road where Miss Hopkins rented a flat. There was evidence by the landlord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lim Chen Len; PP
- Chu Chee Peng v PP
- Hussin bin Sillit v PP
- PP; Rangapula and Another