## Facts

- Shaw published a booklet listing the names and contact details of prostitutes.
- He was charged with three offences: publishing an obscene article under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, conspiracy to corrupt public morals (a common law offence), and living on the earnings of prostitution under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
- The prosecution alleged that Shaw’s conduct fell within the statutory definition of obscenity, constituted a conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and that payments received from prostitutes for publication services amounted to living on the earnings of prostitution.
- Shaw argued that his intention was to help prostitutes, not to corrupt morals or benefit unlawfully from their activities.
- The House of Lords, by majority, upheld his convictions on all three charges.

## Issues

1. Whether the publication constituted an obscene article under s.1(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and if the author’s intention was relevant to this determination.
2. Whether there exists a common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and if so, whether Shaw’s actions amounted to such an offence.
3. Whether Shaw was living on the earnings of prostitution within the meaning of s.30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, given the nature of the payments received.
4. Whether the court’s interpretation of the offences unduly extended or exceeded statutory boundaries, as highlighted by dissenting opinions.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the test for obscenity is objective and focuses on whether the article tends to deprave and corrupt those likely to encounter it, rendering the author’s subjective intention irrelevant.
- The court affirmed the common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, concluding that the agreement to publish the booklet sufficed for criminal liability.
- Shaw’s conviction for living on the earnings of prostitution was upheld; the payments received were found to be directly linked to the prostitutes’ trade, satisfying statutory requirements.
- Lord Reid dissented, disagreeing with both the majority’s recognition of conspiracy to corrupt public morals as a common law offence and the scope of “living on the earnings of prostitution.”
- The majority decision established that courts could recognise common law offences aimed at upholding public morality, even without explicit statutory definition.

## Legal Principles

- Obscenity under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 is assessed by the objective effect of the material on prospective readers, not the author’s stated intention.
- A common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals exists independently of statute and is constituted by an agreement to engage in conduct likely to harm public morals.
- To be guilty of living on the earnings of prostitution under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, there must be a direct nexus between services provided, payments received, and the prostitution activities.
- Judicial recognition and development of common law offences is permissible where societal values and public morality are concerned, although this was contested by dissenting judiciary.

## Conclusion

Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 220 is a landmark case affirming the primacy of the objective test for obscenity, the existence of a common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and a pragmatic statutory interpretation of living on the earnings of prostitution. The case remains influential in debates over the boundaries of criminal law and judicial intervention in moral matters, highlighting both the majority’s approach and Lord Reid’s cautious dissent regarding legal overreach.

Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 220 (HL)