Would be interesting to know if it has ever been used........from discussions I've had I get the impression its totally overlooked. Of course the killer touch is that money doesn't have to change hands for habitual prostitution to have occurred..........just regular casual sex. You could use it against almost any modern single woman under 40
Yes it would be interesting to know, but I've not been able to find out with a quick search of t'internet, although, like you, I've never anecdotally come across a case. In fact most of the organisations offering advice to sex workers seem to just ignore it and say as long as you are working alone you are fine?
This FOI request would suggest prosecutions brought against landlords letting premises is pretty rare, so I would imagine Section 36 is even less so .... certainly in recent times?
External Link/Members OnlyYes the definition of a brothel is also suitably vague and dates back nearly 90 years and as you say exchange of money is not technically required.
“
a place where people of opposite sexes are allowed to resort for illicit intercourse, whether…common prostitutes or not”:Winter v Woolfe [1931] KB 549.
Then again what constitutes habitual prostitution? Daily, weekly, monthly?
Suitably vague to allow the lawyers to argue and earn a crust. English Law don't you just love it