Court case[1962] AC 220

The House of Lords held that conspiracy to corrupt public morals is an offence at common law and that the courts retain a residual power to guard the moral welfare of the State. Lord Reid dissented on that count, holding that the creation of new offences is for Parliament.

After the Street Offences Act 1959 drove prostitutes off the London streets, Shaw published the Ladies' Directory, a booklet carrying the names, addresses, telephone numbers, photographs and coded descriptions of the services of prostitutes, who paid him for the advertisements. He was convicted on three counts: conspiracy to corrupt public morals, living wholly or partly on the earnings of prostitution contrary to s. 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and publishing an obscene article contrary to the Obscene Publications Act 1959. He appealed to the House of Lords, arguing above all that no offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals existed in English law.

The House dismissed the appeal on all three counts. Viscount Simonds, for the majority, held that "there remains in the courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State", and that it was the duty of the courts "to guard it against attacks which may be the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for". The judges were the custodes morum (guardians of morals) of the people. Lord Reid dissented on the first count: where Parliament had not legislated, it was not for the judges to extend the criminal law to conduct they thought immoral; that was a matter of policy for the legislature. On the remaining counts the House was unanimous.