Prostitution charge is not for men, judges say

Only women may be charged with loitering in a public place for the purposes of prostitution under the 1959 Street Offences Act, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Two judges agreed that a London magistrate was correct when he decided that the law was limited 'to the activities of female prostitutes and excluded from its scope the activities of male prostitutes'.

The legal issue arose after Andrew Bull was prosecuted for 'being a common prostitute' and loitering in Soho in December 1992 for the purposes of prostitution.

Ian Baker, Wells Street stipendiary magistrate, decided last April that there was no case to answer because he had been charged with a 'women only' offence. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed on the grounds that the law was not 'gender specific', but Lord Justice Mann and Mr Justice Laws upheld the magistrate's decision.

Lord Justice Mann said provisions of the Act referred specifically to women. He said the earlier 1956 Sexual Offences Act made it an offence for a man 'persistently to solicit or importune in a public place for immoral purposes'.

But the DPP argued that, since 1967, male prostitution had been in certain circumstances not unlawful and accordingly, 'in the new environment', it was open to the court to interpret the Street Offences Act as applying to male prostitutes, even if that was not the original intention of Parliament.

Describing that as 'a bold submission', the judge said he believed there was great force in the argument that 'common prostitute' was ordinarily regarded as signifying a woman'. It was improbable that Parliament intended to create a new male offence only 'subtly different' from that contained in the Sexual Offences Act.

'It is plain that the 'mischief' that the (Street Offences) Act was intended to remedy was a mischief created by women,' said the judge.

It had been conceded by the DPP that if the court was to look at parliamentary debates on the issue it would become plain that the Act was only intended to be applicable to women.

The ruling sparked angry reaction in Westminster. Clare Short, Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, said: 'This is clearly nonsense. If female prostitutes create a nuisance then surely male prostitutes do the same.'