R v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1972 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Year | 1972 |
| Date | 1972 |
Crime - Conspiracy - Contra bonos mores - Magazine advertisements - Readers invited to meet advertisers for purposes of homosexual practices - Whether agreement to insert advertisements a conspiracy to corrupt public morals - Whether conspiracy to outrage public decency - Essential elements of offence - Whether necessary for an act to be committed in public
The appellants were directors of a company which published a fortnightly magazine. On an inside page under a column headed “Males” advertisements were inserted inviting readers to meet the advertisers for the purpose of homosexual practices. The appellants were convicted on counts of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency.
The appellants appealed on the grounds that an agreement by two or more persons to insert advertisements in a magazine for the purpose of homosexual acts taking place between consenting adult males in private did not constitute the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals; that the judge misdirected the jury as to the effect of the
On appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions was wrongly decided and should be overruled:—
Held, dismissing the appeal on the first count (Lord Diplock dissenting, (1) (per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Kilbrandon) that Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions was rightly decided (post, pp. 154E, 185B–C, D–F); (per Lord Reid Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Simon of Glaisdale) that even if Shaw was wrongly decided it must stand until it was altered by Parliament (post, pp. 147E, 154F–G, 157D–G, 174G–H, 179G–H).
(2) That the law relating to the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals had not been altered by virtue of section 1 (1) of the
Per curiam. The decision in Shaw is in no way to be taken as affirming or lending any support to the doctrine that the courts have some general or residual power either to create new offences or so to widen existing offences as to make punishable conduct of a type hitherto not subject to punishment (post, pp. 149H, 156C, 180C–D, 185G–186B).
Held, allowing the appeal on the second count (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissenting), (per Lord Reid and Lord Diplock) that the offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency was an offence unknown to the law (post, pp. 149H–150B, G–H, 160E, F, 171H); (per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon) that there was a common law offence of that nature (post, pp. 158C, 159E183C–E, 186H–187A) but (per Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon) that in the present case there had been a misdirection in relation to the meaning of “decency” and “outrage” and the element of publicity required to constitute the offence (post, pp. 184H–185A, 187A).
Observations on the direction to be given to the jury on a charge of conspiracy to outrage public decency (post, pp. 184F–H).
Decision of the Court of Appeal[
The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:
Beamish v. Beamish(
Bowman v. Secular Society Ltd.[
Herring v. Walround(
Linkletter v. Walker(
London Street Tramways Co. Ltd. v. London County Council[
Mirehouse v. Rennell(
Mulcahy v. The Queen(
Nash v. Tamplin & Sons Brewery Brighton Ltd.[
Poulterers' Case, The(
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)[
Radcliffe v. Ribble Motor Services[
Reg. v. Aspinall(
Reg. v. Bhagwan[
Reg. v. Grey(
Reg. v. Howell and Bentley(
Reg. v. Mayling[
Reg. v. National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson[
Reg. v. Newland[
Reg. v. Rowlands(
Reg. v. Saunders(
Rex v. Bateman(
Rex v. Bembridge(
Rex v. Carlile(
Rex v. Crunden(
Rex v. Curl(
Rex v. De Berenger(
Rex v. Delaval(
Rex v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge(
Rex v. Leigh(
Rex v. Lynn(
Rex v. Manley[
Rex v. Moore(
Rex v. Sidley(
Rex v. Starling(
Rex v. Taylor(
Rex v. Turner(
Rex v. Wheatly(
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions[
Smith v. Hughes[
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Reg. v. Anderson[
Reg. v. Calder & Boyars Ltd.[
Reg. v. Farrell(
Reg. v. Hicklin(
Reg. v. Holmes(
Reg. v. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd.[
Reg. v. Mears and Chalk(
Reg. v. Quinn[
Reg. v. Reed(
Reg. v. Stanley[
Reg. v. Thallman(
Reg. v. Watson(
Reg. v. Webb(
Reg. v. Wellard(
Rex v. Berg(
Rex v. Montalk(
APPEAL from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
This was an appeal by the appellants, Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd., David Hall, Peter Stansill and Graham Keen from an order of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Fenton Atkinson L.J., Roskill and Caulfield JJ.) dated July 16, 1971, dismissing their appeals against conviction on an indictment charging them of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency.
On November 10, 1970, at the Central Criminal Court (Judge Sutcliffe), the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals (count one) and conspiracy to outrage public decency (count two). Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd., was ordered to pay a fine of £1,000 on the first count and £500 on the second count and to pay up to £500 of the costs of the prosecution. The other three appellants were sentenced to concurrent terms of 18 months' imprisonment on count one and 12 months' imprisonment on count two suspended for two years and were each ordered to pay up to £200 of the costs of the prosecution.
The appellants appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that an agreement by two or more persons to insert advertisements in a magazine for the purpose of homosexual acts to take place between consenting adult males did not constitute the offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency; that the judge misdirected the jury as to the effect of the
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Douglas v DPP
...28 The history of the offence was further considered by the English House of Lords in Knuller v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1973] A.C. 435. The appellants were directors of a company which published a magazine containing advertisements which invited readers to meet the advertisers 'f......
-
R v Greater London Council, ex parte Blackburn
...(1875) 1 Queen's Bench, p. 15. 18 This common law offence was clearly recognised by the House of Lords in Knuller's Case (1973) A. C. 435. Lord Reid said (at p. 458) in this context that indecency "includes anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgustin......
-
R v Bishop
...common man or woman still regards as immoral or wrong is not wide enough to support We respectfully agree with the opinion of Lord Reid. in Knuller's case, 1973 Appeal Cases, 435 at page 457, that "there is a material difference between merely exempting certain con-duct from criminal penal......
-
R Ats. Thorpe v Molyneaux
...1966 as shown in cases such as Jones (& Hudson) v. Secretary of State [1972] A.C. 944, and Knuller (Publishing etc.) Ltd. v. D.P.P. [1973] A.C. 435, while its beneficial effects are demonstrated in cases such a Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) (Ltd.) [1976] A.C. 443. 182 I am of opinion......
-
Fair notice and fair adjudication: two kinds of legality.
...cases involving consensual sex where judges stretched to impose criminal liability."); see also Knuller v. Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, [1973] A.C. 435, 457 (H.L. 1972) (appeal taken from Eng.) (holding that although homosexual acts had been recently legalized, the defendant was nonetheless g......
-
Subject Index
...382 ...... 68Kamleh v The Queen [2005] HCA 2 ....... 1, 24217–218Kewa v R [2004] NZCA 267 ..........................13 9Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435 ........................ 31Kostovski v Netherlands (1989) 12 EHRR434 ................................................................... 2 93Ku......
-
The Need to Kill Off Zombie Law
...Judges Develop the Common Law?’ [2014]CJICL 124, A. Patterson, ‘Decision-making in the UK’s Top Court’ [2014] CJICL 77.84. Knuller vDPP [1973] AC 435 HL and Jones et al [2006] UKHL 16; [2007] 1 AC 136 [60]–[62].85. Marianne Giles’s reply to Nicola Padfield’s response to her criticism of RvR......
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
...and G. R. Sullivan, Criminal Law, Theory and Doctrine, 3rd edn (HartPublishing: Oxford, 2007) 395.87 [1963] 2 QB 717; Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435.88 Mayling itself involved indecent conduct in a public lavatory, but see also R vCrunden (1809) 2 Camp 89 (nude bathing); R v Howell and Bentley......