Smith v Hughes (1960) In 1959, two prostitutes are standing on a balcony or behind the windows of their house to be seen by the public. They solicited men who were passing in the street by attracting

Recherche parmi différents professeurs en Anglais…

Moran

Smith v Hughes (1960) In 1959, two prostitutes are standing on a balcony or behind the windows of their house to be seen by the public. They solicited men who were passing in the street by attracting their attention by tapping on the balcony railing with some metal object and hissing at them as they passed in the street. After having attracted them, they talk with them and invite them to come inside the premises. But the Street Offences Act prohibits prostitution in public places. The prostitutes claimed that the balcony was not "in a street" within the meaning of section 1 of the 1959 Street Offenses Act and that accordingly no offence had been committed.Why does the judge interpret the rule of the mishief rule? In fact, he avoided a literal interpretation that would have allowed prostitutes to avoid a conviction. Considering it is a public place, it allowed to condemn them and to respect the spirit, the idea of the law to put an end to the harassment on the part of prostitutes.

17 nov. 2019 13:49

Corrections · 9

Ce contenu enfreint nos lignes directrices de la communauté.

17 novembre 2019

Smith v Hughes (1960)

In 1959, two prostitutes were standing on a balcony or behind the windows of their house in order to be seen by the public. They solicited men who were passing in the street,<s> by</s> [1] attracting their attention by tapping on the balcony railing with some metal object and <s>hissing</s> whistling [2] at them as they passed in the street. After having attracted them, they talk with them and invited them to come inside the premises.

But the Street Offences Act prohibits prostitution in public places.

The prostitutes claimed that the balcony was not "in a street" within the meaning of section 1 of the 1959 Street Offenses Act and that accordingly no offence had been committed.Why does the judge interpret the rule of the mischief rule? In fact, he avoided a literal interpretation that would have <s>allowed</s> enabled prostitutes to avoid a conviction. Considering it is a public place, it allowed him to <s>condemn</s> convict them, and <s>to</s> respect the spirit -- the idea {better: intent} of the law -- to put an end to the harassment on the part of prostitutes.

<ol><li>Not wrong, but "by attracting...by tapping" reads a little redundant.</li><li>"Hissing" implies a snake sound, so we don't usually use it to describe a "beckoning" sound, but rather, to repel someone/something.</li></ol>

17 novembre 2019

Smith v Hughes (1960)

In 1959, two prostitutes are standing on a balcony or behind the windows of their house to be seen by the public. They solicited men who were passing in the street by attracting their attention by tapping on the balcony railing with some metal object and hissing at them as they passed in the street. After having attracted them, they talk with them and invite them to come inside the premises.

But the Street Offences Act prohibits prostitution in public places.

The prostitutes claimed that the balcony was not "in a street" within the meaning of section 1 of the 1959 Street Offenses Act and that accordingly no offence had been committed.Why does the judge apply the mischief rule? Because, in so doing, he avoided a literal interpretation, which would have allowed prostitutes to avoid a conviction. Considering it is a public place, this approach allowed him to condemn them and thus to respect the spirit and the objective of the law, which was to put an end to the harassment on the part of prostitutes.

I have re-formulated the last 3 sentences which were to "franglais". If you are thinking "en effet", never translate it by "in fact", which gives a complete contresens.

17 novembre 2019