Kelly v Purvis, [1983] Q.B. 663
Citation:Kelly v Purvis, [1983] Q.B. 663
Rule of thumb 1: If a women is offer nudity or sex acts from to people in her property, is this deemed to be a brothel? Yes, even if there is no sexual intercourse, this can still be deemed to be a brothel.
Rule of thumb 2: Is a landlord allowed to use their property as a brothel? No, this is illegal and it is a nuisance.
Judgment:
It is an offence for a landlord to rent premises if they know that their tenant is using them to carry out prostitution there, “To constitute a brothel, it is not essential to show that premises are in fact used for the purpose of prostitution which involves payment for services rendered. A brothel is also constituted where the women (for there must be more than one woman) do not charge for sexual intercourse it is not essential that there be evidence that normal sexual intercourse is provided in the premises. It is sufficient to prove that more than one woman offers herself as a participant in physical acts of indecency for the sexual gratification of men” per Ackner L.J., at 669-671
Ratio-decidendi:
“more than one woman offered herself as a participant of physical acts of indecency for the sexual gratification of men”: Kelly v Purvis [1983] QB 663
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.