Prostitution in the UK - is it lawful?

[lovingboth]

I know it's not illegal (although various related activities are) but is it lawful?

Memory is telling me it isn't: thus you can't enforce a contract based on sex in the courts, just as you can't enforce a gambling debt.

The case I remember involved a woman who agreed to part-pay for a car through having sex with the seller a number of times. When she stopped having sex with him before then, he sued to get the car back for breach of contract and lost (and if anyone has a reference for that case, I'd be grateful!)

Memory is also telling me homosexual acts aren't 'lawful' either, merely decriminalised...

Comments

[zotz]

I remember some discussions with the erstwhile love of my life (TELOML), who was a law student at the time. Actually, I understand that she is again, but that's another matter.

No contract can depend on an immoral act. This actually came up as part of an explanation of why premarital contracts aren't considered valid contracts in Britain. So logically, indeed no court would try to enforce such a deal. I don't know of any specific cases, though.

I certainly hope not

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I certainly hope it isn't. This is not just a compromise or expedient view. I think it's the correct long-term policy.

I think that the law should never compel anyone to have sex, have surgery, injure themselves, etc. just as it does not enforce "impaired judgement" or "under duress" agreements. So receiving money to do porn and then reneging should also be valid. People who pay for such services should rely on the fairness and reputation of the sellers. Of course, the problem is with protecting those who renege from violent enforcement of the debts.

Pavlos

Re: I certainly hope not

[zotz]

If the contract were valid and the prostitute reneged, then the fee would be returnable. As it is, there's no contract and therefore no legal reason to return the fee. Being a valid contract would not necessarily (in a sane society, anyway) mean that the sex became compulsory.

[elves-uk.livejournal.com]

um, don't understand the question but I do know you can work as a "professional" from home as long as only one person works at the venue, otherwise its a bordello :) Street walking is not illegal but soliciting is, they usually get you on a public nuisance charge.

Re: I certainly hope not

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

It would have that effect if the seller no longer has the money. For example if someone gets a large sum to make porn, spends it, and then drops out. I guess it depends on how strongly the law enforces private debts.

Pavlos

Re: I certainly hope not

[badriya.livejournal.com]

Certain contracts are not enforced but the court awards damages instead. This would maybe be like a contract of employment. If given unfair notice the employee would get damages rather than the court demand he be employed again. Presumably this sort of solution applies whereever it is impractical to enforce the contract.

Bluerose worked as a prostitute for a few years, m/m and m/f as well as some bdsm. I think he said it was legal but there were restrictions on where and how. He enjoyed it and found it a very efficient way to earn money.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

It isn't a crime at common law, and I can't think of a relevant tort, so I think it must be lawful. As zotz says, the reason the contract was unenforceable was because it was for an immoral purpose, not an unlawful one. Same goes for gambling. I would be surprised if homosexual acts were still considered either unlawful or immoral by the English Courts, but I haven't researched it recently.

[lovingboth]

"But there is a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties [in this case homosexual acts] and making it lawful in the full sense. Prostitution and gaming afford examples of this difference" - Lord Reid, giving the lead opinion in the gay personal ads case.

I'm getting the impression the spectrum goes lawful - not lawful - unlawful. The former has rights, the middle doesn't. But the latter has penalties, and the middle doesn't.

AIUI, it's like the difference between decriminalising say cannabis and legalising it. Various campaigners want the former because that means big companies wouldn't be able to take over the market - it wouldn't be lawful...

Both this lot of defendents and Shaw were convicted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. In both cases, the Law Lords said morality is for juries to decide, as representatives of that public. The only reason the publishers of Boyz and QX aren't behind bars for printing way way more explicit ads than either of their predecessors is that a (properly chosen) jury would never convict now.

I'm less sure why they've not been convicted of living on earnings of prostitution... Someone's clearly decided not to prosecute - but if they were done for it, I'd be fascinated to hear their defence.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Evidently there's room for disagreement on the distinction. There was another case recently about whether or not it was a criminal offence to tighten the tourniquet for someone while they injected themselves with an overdose. Taking an illegal substance (as opposed to possessing it) has never been criminalised; committing suicide used to be a crime, but isn't any more. The judgment in that case proceeded on the basis that what the deceased was doing was lawful.

[lovingboth]

Did they know they were taking an overdose, ie were they trying to commit suicide?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

It was probably intended as recreational use, but the Court considered both possibilities.