## Facts

- After legislation reduced street solicitation, Frederick Charles Shaw arranged to publish a booklet, the “Ladies Directory,” advertising prostitutes.
- The booklet listed prostitutes’ names, addresses, and telephone numbers; included nude photographs; and contained coded material indicating willingness to provide various sexual services.
- Shaw generated revenue from (1) advertising fees paid by prostitutes and (2) sales of the booklet through commercial distribution.
- Shaw was indicted on three counts: (1) conspiracy to corrupt public morals (common law), (2) living on the earnings of prostitution under Sexual Offences Act 1956 § 30, and (3) publishing an obscene publication under Obscene Publications Act 1959 § 2.
- He was convicted on all counts; appellate review proceeded only on counts (1) and (2).

## Issues

1. Whether English law recognizes an indictable common-law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and whether Shaw’s agreement to publish the directory fell within it.
2. Whether accepting payment from prostitutes for advertisements constituted “living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution” under Sexual Offences Act 1956 § 30.
3. Whether the Obscene Publications Act 1959 displaced or limited prosecution for conspiracy to corrupt public morals where publication was central to the conduct.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions on counts (1) and (2).
- By majority, the court held that conspiracy to corrupt public morals is an indictable common-law offense and that Shaw’s scheme fell within it.
- The court held that Shaw “lived in part on the earnings of prostitution” because he was knowingly paid by prostitutes for services provided for the purpose of their prostitution, which he would not have provided but for that fact.
- The court rejected the argument that the Obscene Publications Act 1959 precluded the common-law conspiracy charge in these circumstances.
- Dissenting judges objected to recognizing a broad, judge-made offense of corrupting public morals and would have construed § 30 more narrowly.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may recognize and apply a common-law offense of conspiracy to corrupt public morals where an agreement is aimed at conduct viewed as a serious attack on public morality.
- The gravamen of conspiracy is the agreement and intent to corrupt public morals; completion of the contemplated act is not required for the conspiracy offense.
- A person may be found to be “living wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution” when he knowingly receives payment from prostitutes for goods or services supplied for the purpose of their prostitution that would not be supplied but for their status as prostitutes.
- Statutory regulation of obscenity does not necessarily displace distinct common-law offenses addressing broader moral harms, even when publication is part of the alleged scheme.
- Dissent: creating or expanding broad criminal offenses is principally a legislative function; criminal liability should be confined by legality and clear statutory meaning, particularly for § 30.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords sustained Shaw’s convictions by affirming a common-law offense of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and interpreting “living on the earnings of prostitution” to include knowingly profiting from prostitution-related advertising, while holding that the obscenity statute did not bar the conspiracy prosecution.


Shaw v. Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, [1962] A.C. 220 (H.L. 1961)