R v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd

Weekly Law Reports The Law Reports Cited authorities (6) Cited in (131) Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date1972
Year1972
Date1972
[HOUSE OF LORDS] KNULLER (PUBLISHING, PRINTING AND PROMOTIONS) LTD. AND OTHERS APPELLANTS AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT [On appeal from REGINA v. KNULLER (PUBLISHING, PRINTING AND PROMOTIONS) LTD.] 1972 March 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15; June 14 Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon

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 Sexual Offences Act 1967 on the charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals; that such an agreement did not constitute the offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency and that the trial judge failed to direct the jury that for that offence the agreement must envisage something in the nature of a public exhibition which was indecent. The Court of Appeal, applying Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] A.C. 220, dismissed the appeals.

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 Sexual Offences Act 1967, that the offence could be committed by encouraging conduct which although not itself illegal might be calculated to corrupt public morals and that accordingly, it was for the jury to decide whether or not the advertisements were, by present-day standards, corrupting of public morals (post, pp. 149A–D, 152B–E, 174F).

Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] A.C. 220, H.L.(E.) applied.

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, 159E 183C–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 [1971] 3 W.L.R. 633; [1971] 3 All E.R. 314 affirmed in part.

The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions:

Beamish v. Beamish (1861) 9 H.L.Cas. 274, H.L.(E.).

Bowman v. Secular Society Ltd. [1917] A.C. 406, H.L.(E.).

Herring v. Walround (1681) 2 Chan.Cas. 110.

Linkletter v. Walker (1965) 381 U.S. 618.

London Street Tramways Co. Ltd. v. London County Council [1898] A.C. 375, H.L.(E.).

Mirehouse v. Rennell (1833) 1 Cl. & F. 527.

Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306, H.L.(E.).

Nash v. Tamplin & Sons Brewery Brighton Ltd. [1952] A.C. 231; [1951] 2 All E.R. 869, H.L.(E.).

Poulterers' Case, The (1611) 9 Co.Rep. 55b.

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234; [1966] 3 All E.R. 77, H.L.(E.).

Radcliffe v. Ribble Motor Services [1939] A.C. 215; [1939] 1 All E.R. 637, H.L.(E.).

Reg. v. Aspinall (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 48, C.A.

Reg. v. Bhagwan [1972] A.C. 60; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 501; [1970] 3 All E.R. 97, H.L.(E.).

Reg. v. Grey (1864) 4 F. & F. 73.

Reg. v. Howell and Bentley (1864) 4 F. & F. 160.

Reg. v. Mayling [1963] 2 Q.B 717; [1963] 2 W.L.R. 709; [1963] 1 All E.R. 687, C.C.A.

Reg. v. National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson [1972] 2 W.L.R. 210; [1972] 1 All E.R. 145, H.L.(E.).

Reg. v. Newland [1954] 1 Q.B. 158; [1953] 3 W.L.R. 826; [1953] 2 All E.R. 1067, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Rowlands (1851) 17 Q.B. 671.

Reg. v. Saunders (1875) 1 Q.B.D. 15.

Rex v. Bateman (1925) 28 COX C.C. 33, C.C.A.

Rex v. Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug. 327.

Rex v. Carlile (1819) 3 B. & Ald. 161.

Rex v. Crunden (1809) 2 Camp. 89.

Rex v. Curl (1727) 2 Str. 788; 1 Barn K.B. 29.

Rex v. De Berenger (1814) 3 M. & S. 67.

Rex v. Delaval (1763) 3 Burr. 1434.

Rex v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge (1721) 8 Mod. 11.

Rex v. Leigh (1775) 1 Car. & Kir. 28n; sub nom. Macklin's Case (1775) 2 Camp. 372n.

Rex v. Lynn (1788) 2 Durn. & E. 733.

Rex v. Manley [1933] 1 K.B. 529, C.C.A.

Rex v. Moore (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 184.

Rex v. Sidley (1663) 1 Sid. 168.

Rex v. Starling (1663) 1 Sid. 174.

Rex v. Taylor (1675) 1 Vent. 293.

Rex v. Turner (1811) 13 East 228.

Rex v. Wheatly (1761) 2 Burr. 1125.

Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] A.C. 220; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 897; [1961] 1 All E.R. 330; [1961] 2 All E.R. 446, C.C.A. and H.L.(E.).

Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 W.L.R. 830; [1960] 2 All E.R. 859, D.C.

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Reg. v. Anderson [1972] 1 Q.B. 304; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 939; [1971] 3 All E.R. 1152, C.A.

Reg. v. Calder & Boyars Ltd. [1969] 1 Q.B. 151; [1968] 3 W.L.R. 974; [1968] 3 All E.R. 644, C.A.

Reg. v. Farrell (1862) 9 Cox C.C. 446.

Reg. v. Hicklin (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 360.

Reg. v. Holmes (1853) Dears. C.C. 207.

Reg. v. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1138; [1954] 2 All E.R. 683.

Reg. v. Mears and Chalk (1851) 4 Cox C.C. 425, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Quinn [1962] 2 Q.B. 245; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 611; [1961] 3 All E.R. 88, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Reed (1871) 12 Cox C.C. 1.

Reg. v. Stanley [1965] 2 Q.B. 327; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 917; [1965] 1 All E.R. 1035, C.C.A.

Reg. v. Thallman (1863) Le. & Ca. 326.

Reg. v. Watson (1847) 2 Cox C.C. 376.

Reg. v. Webb (1848) 2 Car. & Kir. 933.

Reg. v. Wellard (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 63.

Rex v. Berg (1927) 20 Cr.App.R. 38, C.C.A.

Rex v. Montalk (1932) 23 Cr.App.R. 182, C.C.A.

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 Sexual Offences Act 1967 on the charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and that he failed to direct the jury that a vital ingredient of the offence of conspiracy to outrage public decency was that the agreement must envisage something in the nature of a public exhibition which was indecent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals but granted a certificate that points of law of general public importance were involved in the decision, namely, (i) as to the first count, whether an agreement by two or more persons to insert advertisements in a magazine, whereby adult male advertisers sought replies from other adult males who were prepared to consent to commit homosexual acts with them in private, was capable of amounting to the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals; (ii) as to the second count, whether an agreement to insert such advertisements on the inside pages of a magazine with a wide circulation on sale in public places, and which was being read individually at any one time by a number of people in different places, was capable of amounting to the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
82 cases
  • Douglas v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 April 2017
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 April 1976
    ...(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
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 13 June 1974
    ...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......
  • State v Gobin; State v Griffith
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • 31 March 1976
    ...to settle the law once and for all. He relied heavily on the majority opinion in Knuller v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1972) 56 Cr. App. R: 633, in which the House was asked to overrule Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1962] A.C. 220, a judgment of the House which decided t......
    • Get Started for Free
17 books & journal articles
  • Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 74-6, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...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......
  • Child Pornography: Balancing Substantive and Evidential Law to Safeguard Children Effectively from Abuse
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 9-1, January 2005
    • 1 January 2005
    ...objectively indecent.He provides, as an example, an offender who used to film 7–8-year-old girls on holiday10 See, e.g., Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435, R v Graham-Kerr (1988) 88 Cr App R 302 and R v Smethurst[2002] 1 Cr App R 6.11 R v Smethurst [2002] 1 Cr App R 6.12 [1972] 2 QB 391.13 Ibid. ......
  • The Need to Kill Off Zombie Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 81-1, February 2017
    • 1 February 2017
    ...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......
  • Treason Versus Outraging Public Decency: Over-Criminalisation and Terrorism Panics
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 84-1, February 2020
    • 1 February 2020
    ...Turner, Russell on Crime (Vol. 2., Stevens & Sons, London 1958) 1633 et seq., Knuller (Publishing, Printing andPromotions) Ltd. v DPP [1973] A.C. 435.15. FL Attenborough, The Laws of the Earliest English Kings (CUP, Cambridge 1922) 66–67.16. Joyce v DPP [1946] A.C. 347.17. See too the discu......
    • Get Started for Free
Add as a preferred source on Google