The Assizes
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835602000203 |
| Published date | 01 April 1956 |
| Date | 01 April 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Assizes
LIVING
ON IMMORAL
EARNINGS:
THE
NARROW
LIMITS
OF
THE
OFFENCE
R.
v. Silver and others
THIS case which was before Judge Maude, Q.C., and a
jury
for nearly three weeks at the Central Criminal
Court
led
to a careful exposition by
the
Judge of the limits of the offence
of knowingly living wholly or in part on the earnings of
prostitution within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act, 1898,
section 1 (I). He directed
the
jury
to
return
verdicts of
Not
Guilty in the case of eight men who were charged with
this offence,
and
one woman who was charged with aiding and
abetting
them
to commit
that
offence.
The
prosecution had
alleged that four of the defendants were landlords of Soho
flats which would normally carry arent of
£3
to
£5
a week,
but
which were let to prostitutes at rents as high as £25 a
week.
In
addition, it was alleged, the women had to pay
£200
key money.
The
other defendants were concerned in
running an estate agency in Soho which the prosecution
alleged dealt with virtually nothing
but
providing
and
letting
of flats to prostitutes.
From
the twenty-four flats concerned
in the case it was alleged that rents totalling
£26,000
a year
were paid by
the
women.
The
Judge told the
jury
that,
having heard the evidence for the Crown, within the law as it
stands at present there was no case for the persons in the
dock to answer.
It
was a matter which Judge
Maude
thought might be
considered of some public importance
and
he thought it right
that he should set
out
the
reasons for his coming to
that
decision.
The
courts could only administer
the
law as they
found it.
That
was to say
that
any feeling of indignation which
the general public or
the
judiciary might have at
the
state of
affairs which appeared to be grossly immoral was irrelevant
unless the facts showed that an offence had been committed
against the existing law.
1+0
To continue reading
Request your trial