## Facts

- A statute (Metropolitan Police Act 1839, s. 44) made it an offence for the keeper of a place of refreshment to “knowingly suffer prostitutes to meet together and remain” on the premises.
- Whitehead owned a London bar/refreshment house and employed a manager to run it; Whitehead visited only once or twice a week.
- Police observed prostitutes congregating in the bar and warned Whitehead that allowing that activity was unlawful.
- After the warning, Whitehead instructed the manager not to allow prostitutes to congregate in the bar.
- Despite those instructions, over the next several nights the manager knew that women who were prostitutes were meeting and remaining in the bar and he allowed it to continue.
- There was no evidence that Whitehead personally knew the prostitutes continued to gather after he gave his instructions.
- The prosecution proceeded on the basis that the manager’s knowledge and conduct were attributable to Whitehead.
- The magistrate dismissed (or declined to uphold) the charge on the ground that Whitehead lacked personal knowledge of the continued activity.
- The prosecution appealed by case stated to the King’s Bench Division.

## Issues

1. Whether a keeper “knowingly suffers” prostitutes to meet and remain on the premises when the keeper lacks personal knowledge, but the manager entrusted with running the premises knows and permits it.
2. Whether, for this statutory offence, the manager’s knowledge and permission can be treated in law as the keeper’s knowledge and permission.
3. Whether the keeper avoids liability by showing he gave the manager express instructions to prevent the prohibited conduct.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench Division allowed the appeal.
- The court held that Whitehead could be convicted because he had delegated the day-to-day conduct of the premises to a manager who knowingly permitted the prohibited activity.
- Whitehead’s lack of personal knowledge, and his instructions to the manager, did not prevent liability under s. 44 on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Where a statutory duty is imposed on the keeper of regulated premises (such as a place of refreshment) and the offence is framed as “knowingly suffering” prohibited conduct, the keeper may be treated as having the required knowledge when the person placed in charge of the premises has that knowledge and permits the conduct.
- A keeper cannot avoid responsibility under such regulatory provisions by delegating control to a manager and then relying on absence of personal awareness.
- Giving instructions to prevent the offence does not necessarily provide a defence if the keeper has placed a manager in control and the manager, acting in the course of running the premises, knowingly allows the prohibited state of affairs to continue.

## Conclusion

Allen v. Whitehead holds that, for an offence under s. 44 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, a bar owner who entrusts management of the premises to a manager may be convicted of “knowingly suffering” prostitutes to meet and remain even if the owner did not personally know the conduct continued and even if the owner had told the manager to stop it, because the manager’s knowledge and permission are attributable to the owner for the purpose of the statute.


Allen v. Whitehead, [1929] All E.R. 13 (1929), [1930] K.B. 211 (1930)