15 JULY 1960, Page 16

After Wolfenden Harry Thorpe, Christopher Driver, Jocelyn Brook, W. M.

Newte Zionism and Anti-Semitism James D. Theberge, George Lichtheim

Clinical Attitudes Mrs. M. E. Sharrock, Mrs. Fay A. Pascoe, Mrs. Sarah Henderson Scientists in India Sir Harold Williams London's Traffic Leo McKern Rubbing the Corners Off U. R. Q. Henriques Tied Houses Francis J. A. Towsey,

Desmond Hawkins

Wine of the Week T. A. Layton South Africa Guy Routh, B. Wegerif and M. Piliso

AFTER WOLFENDEN

SIR,-1 was interested in R. A. Cline's ratio' dissendi from the judgment of Lord Parker in Smith and Others v. Hughes and Others, which case he covers in his article 'Reasoned Decisions,' Spectator, June 24.

In view of the heterodox views imputed to the Divisional Court by that article, one perhaps should quote a dictum of his Lordship: 'Everyone knew it [The Street Offences Act' was an Act to clean up the streets and to allow people to walk along the streets unmolested.' He is thus taking judicial notice (which he has the discretion to do) of the appropriate recommendation of the Wolfenden Report (Recom- mendation XXIX, page 115) and of the grounds for it: 'the streets should be cleared from what is offensive . . . and made tolerable for ordinary citi- zens who, live in them and pass along them.'

His Lordship's statements of the 'mischief' at which the Act aimed is more in accord with the Wolfenden Committee than is the popular impres- sion upon which your contributor hangs his hat.

On the facts of Smith v. Hughes the judgment is perfectly reasonable. Was a common prostitute sit- ting on the private side of that window and attract- ing the attention of male passers-by in the way she did 'soliciting'? The answer was 'yes.' The reason for it is that the solicitation was capable of being received in the street.

The relevance of the public telephone box example given in 'Reasoned Decisions' is not clear; there, surely, the client, although in a public place, is doing the soliciting, which is not an offence.

Now the 'models.' If such an advertisement clearly and unambiguously advertises the carnal ser- vices of the lady, an offence is committed, otherwise the Court would have to be satisfied, beyond reason- able doubt, that the 'model' was a common prosti- tute using a 'device' to secure custom.

Finally, would R. A. Cline agree that a common prostitute, who sent a man on to the street to secure custom for her, was committing an offence—Yours faithfully,