(147) The Court found the harm caused by the Bawdy-House
Offence grossly disproportionate to the objective of combatting nuisance.
210(1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house
(62) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
The Court found that the offence of keeping a common bawdy-house
was grossly disproportionate.
First, the "bawdy-house
" provision was overbroad and its harms disproportionate to its aims, as it extended to "virtually any place" without regard for the community nuisances it was created to prevent.
provisions forced sex workers to engage in "out-call work" rather than working from an "indoor location" (41) where they were better able to ensure their own safety.
constitutionality of both the bawdy-house
and communicating provisions.
In dissent, in her s.7 analysis, Wilson J found that while the bawdy-house
provision could be considered consistent with s.
With respect to the bawdy-house
provisions (aimed at nuisance, public health and safety), there is some real connection of the facts to the objective, and so the provisions are not arbitrary.
Thus, according to their own records, the societies included bawdy-house
patrons among their targets of reform.
Nunnery retained its Elizabethan sense of 'bawdy-house
;' so, I add, lest secular professors snigger, did Academy.
Stephen Petronio, for example, once cavorted in bawdy-house
corsets and now sees gender issues in more universal terms.
Similarly, `Leake' in the quoted passage seems to allude to Mrs Leak who kept a bawdy-house
in Shoreditch which was attacked in 1612.