S v Horn (62/87) [1988] ZASCA 46 (17 May 1988)

S v Horn (62/87) [1988] ZASCA 46 (17 May 1988)

On a proper interpretation of section 20(1)(a) of the Immorality Act, 23 of 1957, the legislature did not intend to criminalise the prostitute herself for living on the earnings of prostitution. The historical context of the provision, its ancestry in pre-Union enactments, and the wording of related subsections indicate that the offence targets third parties who live parasitically on a prostitute's earnings. The extension from 'male person' to 'any person' was to remove gender discrimination, not to include the prostitute within the scope of criminal liability. The use of 'knowingly' and the structure of subsections 20(2) and 21(3) further support this interpretation. Therefore, the...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: René Horn
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 1988
Case Number
62/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division, Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The respondent's acquittal is confirmed.
Judges
Corbett, Kumleben, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Immorality Act Interpretation, Living on Earnings of Prostitution, Criminal Liability of Prostitute
Criminal Law Immorality Act Interpretation Living on Earnings of Prostitution Criminal Liability of Prostitute

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Appellant

René Horn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division, Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prostitute who receives money for sexual intercourse is criminally liable under section 20(1)(a) of the Immorality Act, 23 of 1957.
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'living on the earnings of prostitution' in section 20(1)(a) includes the prostitute herself.

Ratio Decidendi

On a proper interpretation of section 20(1)(a) of the Immorality Act, 23 of 1957, the legislature did not intend to criminalise the prostitute herself for living on the earnings of prostitution. The historical context of the provision, its ancestry in pre-Union enactments, and the wording of related subsections indicate that the offence targets third parties who live parasitically on a prostitute's earnings. The extension from 'male person' to 'any person' was to remove gender discrimination, not to include the prostitute within the scope of criminal liability. The use of 'knowingly' and the structure of subsections 20(2) and 21(3) further support this interpretation. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The respondent's acquittal is confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of appeal.