Legal Case Study

Legal Case Study

Cat, a female prostitute, and Mouse, a male prostitute lived in 2

separate rooms of a house. These rooms were rented to them by Dog.

These 2 rooms only took up a small part of Dog’s house. When Cat and

Mouse ‘entertained’ their clients, they provided all types of sexual

service. Dog knowingly managed their prostitution activities. He also

collected rent from them. The rent was well above the market rate.

On one occasion, Cat agreed to perform sexual services for Cow, a

‘patron’. These services involved both parties engaging in cruel and

violent activity as well as sexual intercourse. In fact, Cow was

suffering from gonorrhoea (a sexual disease) but he did not tell cat

about this. Cat was infected with gonorrhoea. She also sustained many

cuts on her body because of Cow’s cruel treatment.

Discuss the criminal liability of Dog and Cow. What if Cat was the

only prostitute in Dog’s house? Support your answer with the reasons

and authorities where appropriate.

Suggested Solution

==================

Dog’s Criminal Liability

------------------------

Dog was the owner of a house, provided that two prostitutes lived in 2

separate rooms of a house. Also, Dog knowingly managed their

prostitution activities. It is the finding facts of inference of Dog

to be found guilty under the convictions of the offences (Cap200)

s.139(1)(a) and (b). In virtue of Dog’s conducts was knowingly to keep

and manage the said premise as a ’vice establishment’. The appellants

shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for 3 years or

indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.

In contrast, the “vice establishment...

... middle of paper ...

...the body of Cat, only physical contact not satisfied

with the requirement of the offences of inflicting GBH.

Only Cat in the premise

-----------------------

If Cat was the only prostitute in Dog’s house, Dog is not liable for

the conviction of those offences related to “vice establishment” of

(Cap200) s.139(1)(a) and (b) and s.143(a), in virtue of the

satisfaction of the legitimately meaning within (Cap 200)

117(3) that the premise was taken as a “vice establishment”, unless

there were 2 or more persons for the purpose of prostitution.

However, Dog was still knowingly lived with the earning in return of

higher rent from Cat’s prostitution activities and may be liable to

conviction of offence in contrary to (Cap 200) s.137(1) and shall be

liable on the conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.