R. v. Paterson, (1977) 3 A.R. 39 (CA)

JudgeMcDermid, Prowse and Haddad, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateFebruary 25, 1977
Citations(1977), 3 A.R. 39 (CA)

R. v. Paterson (1977), 3 A.R. 39 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Paterson

Indexed As: R. v. Paterson

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

McDermid, Prowse and Haddad, JJ.A.

February 25, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution contrary to s. 195.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The accused woman approached a man in a cabaret and upon being asked to sit down she let him know that she was a prostitute. They discussed her price, a hotel where she could take him and the services she offered. The man, an undercover police officer, appeared receptive and the accused did not need to be persistent, pestering or annoying. The accused was charged with soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution. The accused was acquitted by a judge of the provincial court. The Crown appealed by way of a stated case.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and convicted the accused. The Court of Appeal held that it was not necessary for a conviction that the accused show pressing or persistent conduct in soliciting her customer - see paragraphs 14 to 36.

McDermid, J.A., dissenting, was of the opinion that pressing or persistent conduct was required in addition to merely offering her services - see paragraphs 1 to 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 783

Sexual offences - Public morals and disorderly conduct - Soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C- 34, s. 195.1 - What constitutes - The accused woman approached a man in a cabaret and upon being asked to sit down she let him know that she was a prostitute - They discussed her price, a hotel where she could take him and the services she offered - The man, an undercover police officer, appeared receptive and the accused did not need to be persistent, pestering or annoying - The accused was charged with soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the accused was guilty of soliciting - The Court of Appeal held that it was not necessary for a conviction that the accused show pressing or persistent conduct in soliciting her customer - See paragraphs 14 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rolland (1975), 31 C.R.N.S. 68, not folld. [para. 7].

R. v. Hutt, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 690, consd. [paras. 8, 23].

Behrendt v. Burridge, [1976] 3 All E.R. 285, consd. [paras. 10, 29].

Dale v. Smith, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 700, refd to. [para. 10].

Smith et al. v. Hughes et al., [1962] 1 W.L.R. 830; [1960] 2 All E.R. 859, dist. [para. 22].

R. v. Edwards, [1974] 4 W.W.R. 185; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 545, refd to. [para. 22].

Weisz v. Monohan, [1962] 1 All E.R. 664, consd. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 195.1 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dictionary of Canadian English [para. 4].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed.), p. 239 et seq. [para. 12].

Oxford English Dictionary [para. 3].

Random House Dictionary of the English Language [para. 26].

Webster's Third New International Dictionary [para. 26].

Counsel:

B.R. Fraser, for the Crown appellant;

J.J. Lehane, for the respondent.

This case was heard before McDERMID, PROWSE and HADDAD, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On February 25, 1977, the judgment of the Appellate Division was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McDERMID, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 - 13, HADDAD, J.A. - see paragraphs 14 - 36.

PROWSE, J.A., concurred with HADDAD, J.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT