R v Hutt
R v Hutt, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 476 is a leading
The Court ruled that there must be “importuning”, or “pressing or persistent” conduct which must constitute more than a “mere” indication that the prostitute was willing to engage in an act of
The Court ruled that the conduct displayed in this case was certainly not within the scope of a criminal provision intended by Parliament to prohibit acts “which would contribute to public inconvenience.” Further four Judges of the Court also indicated that, had the issue been pursued, they would not have considered the automobile to be a “public place” within the definition contained in the Criminal Code, and therefore would have ruled that the conduct would not have been within section 195.1 on this ground either.[1] Hutt was defended by Anthony P. Serka, a criminal lawyer based in Vancouver,[5] and A. Rounthwaite.[1]
See also
References
- ^ a b c "Hutt v. The Queen - SCC Cases (Lexum)". scc-csc.lexum.com. 27 February 1978. Retrieved 20 January 2019.
- ISBN 9780774826143.
- ^ "Criminal Law Summary – Midterm". lsa.mcgill.ca. Retrieved 20 January 2019.
- ^ Robertson, James R. (19 September 2003). "Prostitution". publications.gc.ca.
- ^ "Tony Serka Criminal Lawyer Vancouver". www.serkaqc.com. Retrieved 20 January 2019.