House to reject ration Essays

House to reject ration Essays House to reject ration Essay House to reject ration Essay Essay Topic: On Liberty Lord Simon held that ot was open to the House to reject ration (iii) and, indeed, the decision does so. Since Lord Tucker did not decide that there is a substantive offence pf corrupting public morals, it seems clear that the ratio must be taken to be (ii). It is therefore uncertain whether an agreement to corrupt public moral is a statutory conspiracy; but judges of first instance may consider themselves bound by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal to hold that it is. Shaw was followed by Knuller where, Lord Diplock dissenting, the House held that an agreement to publish advertisements to facilitate the commission of homosexual acts between adult males in private was a conspiracy to corrupt public morals, although such conduct is no longer a crime. Lord Reid maintained his view that Shaw was wrongly decided but held that should nevertheless be followed in the interests of certainty in the law. Given the existence of the offence, he thought there was sufficient evidence of its commission here. there is a materialdifference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full sense I read (the Sexual Offences Act 1967) as saying that, even though it may be corrupting, if people choose to corrupt themselves in this way that is their affair and the law will not interfere. But no licence is given to others to encourage the practice. In Shaw, Lord Simonds used language which suggested that the House was asserting the right to expand the scope of criminal law. In the sphere of criminal law I entertain no doubt that there remains in the courtd of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State, and that it is their duty to guard against attacks which may be the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for. In Knuller however, the House was emphatic that there is no residual prower to create new offences. That is a task for Parliament. What the Courts can and should do is to recongnize the applicability of established offences to new circumstances to which they are relevant. Moreover, a finding that conduct is liable to corrupt public morals is one not lightly to be reached. It is not enough that is is liable to lead morally astray. Lord Simon of Glaisdale went so far as to say that The words corrupt public morals suggest conduct which a jury might find to be destructive of the very fabric of society. 2. ) Conspiracy to outrage public decency A majority of the House in Knuller (Lords Reich and Diplock dissenting) held that there is a common law offence of outraging public decency and, consequently, it is an offence to conspire to outrage public dencency. The particular offences previously recognised -keeping a disorderly house, mounting an indecent exhibition and indecent exposure were partucular applications of general rule. It is not an anser to show that outragiously indecent matter is nonly on the inside pages of a book or magazine which is sold in public. But outrage like corrupt is a very strong word. Outraging public decency goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people The offeence is concerned with recognised minimum standards of decency, which are likely to vary from time to time Notwithstanding that public in the offence is used in a locative sense, public decency must be viewed as a whole; and the jury should be invited, where appropriate, to remember that they live in a plural sociaty, with a tradition of tolerance towards minorities, and that this atmosphere of tolerance is itself part of public decency. Lords Simon and Kildbrandon (Lord Morris dissenting) thought that the jury had not been adequately directed in accordance with these principles and, accordingly the convicion must be quashed. Major Problem: No defence Def of indecency Now wider III. Evaluation of the status quo 1 Mill, On Liberty, cited in Richard Stone, Textbook on Civil Liberties, p. 194 2 Hart criticizing Devlin in Social Solidarity and the Enforcment of Morality in Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy, 1983, cited by Helen Fenwick, Civil Liberties, 2nd ed. 3 Lord Devlin, The Enforcment of Morals, 1965, cited in Helen Fenwick, Civil Liberties, 2nd ed.