The defendant appealed his conviction under the Act, a private one. It was said that as an innkeeper, he had knowingly suffered four common prostitutes to assemble at and continue in his house and premises contrary to that Act. The Clerk of the Paving Commissioners brought the prosecution.
Held: The prosecutor had standing to issue the summons. Lord Cockburn CJ said: ‘The offence is not a matter of individual grievance as to which provision is made merely for the protection of individual rights, but the matter is one of public policy and utility with a view to the preservation of public morals. The general act gives authority to any one to prosecute for penalties who chooses to do so . . There is a plain distinction between the case of an offence which must be prosecuted for the public protection and where the enactment is one for the protection of individuals.’
Judges:
Lord Cockburn CJ
Citations:
[1860] 24 JP 596
Statutes:
King’s Lynn Waterworks and Borough Improvement Act 1859
Cited by:
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267544
