Shaw vs Dpp case brief Law and Morals PDF

Preview

Summary

This is a case brief for Shaw vs Dpp on the subject area the Law and Morlas...

Description

Wynette F. Mcphee Case Brief of Shaw vs. Dpp. [1962] AC 220 The facts of the case for Shaw vs. Dpp. are that Shaw published a booklet containing mostly the names of prostitutes. It contained their names, addresses and advertisement of their sexual services. Shaw charged the prostitutes for the advertisements and then sold the publication for a fee. As a result he was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and living off the earnings of prostitution.

The Issue was that in this case the appellant appealed his conviction and he argued that such an offence did not exist such as the conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The court also had an issue as to whether this charge actually existed and if the court had the power to create the offence.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld by the House of Lords. The court found that the defendants’ actions of publishing such a booklet was not conducive to the welfare of the morals of society. In essence the House of Lords said that yes the court can create offences to adapt to the changing society as parliament cannot foresee every evil. This case established that an offence that is not written in criminal statute could in fact be created by the court.

Lord Viscount said that when it comes to the criminal law the court is duty bound to protect society and to safeguard its morals. He went on to say that when parliament falls down it is the duty of the Court to act because Parliament cannot foresee every novel evil.

Lord Reid in his dissenting judgement said that even if the Courts are vested with such a right it should not be used unless there appears to be a general agreement that the offence to which it is applied has to be criminal if committed by an individual. He also said that there are different opinions on how far the law ought to punish persons for immoral acts which are not done in the public’s view. Some people think that the law already goes too far, some that the law doesn’t go far enough. Parliament is the only proper place to settle this. Where parliament hesitates the law should not rush in....