The street offences Act was passed by the legislature prohibiting solicitations by the prostitutes at public places. Thereafter, prostitutes solicited the passers by from balconies or windows of their houses. Does it amount to a street offence? What type of interpretation is preferable ? Discuss

Facts in the Case

• The Street Offences Act was enacted by the legislature.
• The Act specifically prohibited solicitation by prostitutes at public places.
• After the Act came into force, prostitutes began soliciting passers-by from balconies or windows of their private homes.
• These homes were located near public streets, making it possible to reach out to people walking in public.
• A legal question arose as to whether such actions constitute a “street offence” under the meaning of the Act.

Issues in the Case

• Does solicitation from private property such as balconies or windows overlooking a public street fall within the ambit of “public place” under the Street Offences Act?
• What is the appropriate rule of interpretation to apply to determine whether such solicitation is punishable under the Act?

Principles Applied

1. Literal Rule of Interpretation
   • This rule involves giving the words of the statute their ordinary grammatical meaning.
   • If interpreted literally, solicitation from within private property may not fall within the phrase “in public places,” thereby excluding such conduct from the scope of the Act.
2. Mischief Rule (Heydon’s Case)
   • This rule focuses on the “mischief” or defect the Act was intended to prevent.
   • The mischief targeted by the Act was public solicitation for immoral purposes that impacts public morality and order.
   • Even if solicitation is done from private premises, the effect on the public is the same as direct street solicitation.
3. Purposive Interpretation
   • Courts using this approach consider the purpose and object of the statute.
   • The intention behind the Street Offences Act was to safeguard the public from solicitation, regardless of the technical location of the offender.
   • If the effect of solicitation reaches the public, it should be brought under the statute’s scope.
4. Judicial Precedent – Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830
   • The English Court of Appeal held that soliciting from windows or balconies still constituted an offence because it was aimed at people in public spaces.
   • The court emphasized that the spirit of the law mattered more than the physical position of the offender.

Judgment

• The appropriate method of interpretation in this case is the Mischief Rule or Purposive Construction, not the Literal Rule.
• The legislature’s intent was to curb public nuisance caused by solicitation, regardless of whether it originated from the street or a nearby private place.
• Since the effect on the public remains the same, solicitation from balconies or windows does constitute a street offence.
• Allowing such conduct based on a literal technicality would defeat the purpose of the statute and encourage circumvention of the law.