Statute Law Revision Reports
Singleton v. Ellison 1895
Mattison v. Johnson 1916
Winter v. Woolfe 1930
Strath v. Foxon 1955
Donovan v. Gavin 1965
Kelly v. Purvis 1983
Stevens v. Christy 1987
DPP v. Bull 1994
R v. Finch 2010
R v. Morris 2011
Rex v. De Munck 1918
(Case law definition)
Living on the Earnings
Safety and Violence
Employment and Organisation
Policing and Enforcement
Community and Urban Studies
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
PUSSI (Prostitutes United for Social and Sexual Integration) 1975
PROS (Programme for Reform of the law on Soliciting) 1976
(Audio link: Apr 11 2007)
Public Health Conference March 29 2007: Resolution on legalisation
British Medical Journal
Last updated: March 13, 2013
For any problems, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
 Singleton v. Ellison (1895) 1 QB 607.
"A house used by a woman for the purpose of prostitution of herself only is not a brothel." "A brothel is the same thing as a 'bawdy-house' -a term which has a well known meaning as used by lawyers and in Acts of Parliament. In its legal acceptation it applies to a place resorted to by persons of both sexes for the purpose of prostitution. It is certainly not applicable to the state of things described by the magistrates in this case,
where one woman receives a number of men." Per Wills J. at p. 608
This case first established a 'brothel' as referring to premises used by more than one woman for the purposes of prostitution, following the suppression of brothels under the CLA 1885. That is, a place resorted to by persons of both sexes for the purposes of prostitution.
 Durose v. Wilson (1907) 71JP 263; 96 L.T. 645 DC.
several flats in a block of buildings under one roof are used for the purpose
of prostitution, the whole block may be a brothel." "a brothel is such a place as that described in that case -
that is, premises used by more than one woman for prostitution." Per
 Mattison v. Johnson (1916) 85 LJKB 714.
A single prostitute operating in a premises was not able to permit the premises to be used as a brothel.
 Winter v. Woolfe (1930) 1 KB 549.
Two or more couples having ‘illicit intercourse’ under one roof is a brothel whether or not the women are paid. A place resorted to by persons of the opposite sex.
“A bawdy house by definition is a house resorted to or used by more than one for the purpose of fornication” per Parker CJ, at 303
 Strath v. Foxon (1955) 2 QB 294, 3 A11 ER 398; 39 Cr. App. R 162; (1956) 1 QB 67.
"Premises were held not to be a brothel where such premises were divided into two self-contained flats (with no common use other than a joint use of a kitchen), which were let separately to two known prostitutes, each of whom used her flat for the purposes of prostitution for herself alone."
 Donovan v. Gavin (1965) 2QB 648; 3 W.L.R. 352 (D.C.).
Even separately let rooms may constitute a brothel if they are close enough together to create "a nest of prostitutes”, per Sachs J., at 659.
 Kelly v. Purvis (1983) 1 All ER 525,  2 WLR 299, 76 Cr App R 165;  Q.B. 663
“To constitute a brothel, it is not essential to show that premises are in fact used for the purpose of prostitution which involves payment for services rendered. A brothel is also constituted where the women (for there must be more than one woman) do not charge for sexual intercourse” (post, pp. 669G - 670A).
“it is not essential that there be evidence that normal sexual intercourse is provided in the premises. It is sufficient to prove that more than one woman offers herself as a participant in physical acts of indecency for the sexual gratification of men” per Ackner L.J., at 671, page 7.
An element of reward was not required, nor is sexual intercourse. Two women being ‘lewd’ with a man would constitute a brothel. In this case masseurs masturbating clients (relief massage). (section 33, Sexual Offences Act 1956.)
 Moris-Lowe (1985) 1 All ER 400. Held that for a woman to be referred to as a ‘common prostitute’ she must be “prepared for reward to engage in acts of lewdness with all and sundry, or with anyone who may hire her for that purpose’. This distinguishes a ‘common prostitute’ from a ‘prostitute’, namely that offers her services to more than one person.
 Stevens v. Christy (1987) 85 Cr App R 249
A house or room, or set of rooms in any house kept for the purposes of prostitution
 DPP v. Bull (1994) 4 All ER 411. Court of Appeal held that a man cannot be a common prostitute (Sexual Offences Act 1956), per Mann LJ. Considered the Wolfenden Report and concluded that the committee concerned themselves only with female prostitutes. “It is plain that the ‘mischief’ the Act was intended to remedy was a mischief created by women’, at 413
 Between 1967 and 1981 five private members bills attempted to remove the term “common prostitute” from statutary law, but none received second reading. The term was finally erased by the Policing and Crime Act 2009.
 Rex v. De Munck (1918) 1 K.B. 635. C.C.A.
"We are of the opinion that prostitution is proved if it be shown that a woman offers her body commonly for lewdness for payment in return"; per Darling J at 637
Extended definition of prostitution to mean not just sexual intercourse
 Policy Statements on Women:
41. Providing a freephone
trafficking hotline for clients to report concerns and for victims to
self-report. Advertising of this hotline would be required as part of the
licensing agreement for all sex encounter establishments
42. Ending the increasing criminalisation of noncoercive prostitution and increasing efforts to
help those wishing to exit the sex industry
4.4 The latest British Attitudes
Survey indicated that the
Man-Made Laws For Men? The Street Prostitutes' Campaign Against Control, in, Bridget Hutter, Gillian Williams (eds.) Controlling women: the normal and the deviant, Croom Helm, London 1981. Also Helena Terry: Prostitutes - losers in the game, Third Way 9(10) Oct 1986 pp 10-12
 “That this meeting of RCN Congress makes appropriate
recommendations to the
 This is a special issue of Women’s History Review, dedicated to Josephine Butler's campaigns in international perspective