由此 -6- A B shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 6 months.” B C C D A 13. The undisputed evidence showed that the Appellant was D acting as a common prostitute and offering her body for immoral purposes. E F She had posted her availability, her services, and her charges on a website to which the public had access. Further, she had shown she was willing to E F communicate with members of the public through MSN exchanges, or on G H the telephone and was willing to meet anyone who was prepared to accept her conditions. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that all arrangements G H had been made before the physical meeting, so no solicitation in a public I J place had been made, or needed to be made, at the meeting. Counsel for the Appellant accepted that if there had been no prior agreement, what was I J allegedly said would amount to solicitation. K K L 14. Various authorities were considered by the Magistrate when L determining the questions that arose in this case. The Magistrate had M N M considered Smith v. Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830 where soliciting was examined both in respect of the intention behind legislation to prevent it N and, also what it comprised. Lord Parker CJ stated: O O P Q R S “For my part, I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or is standing in a doorway or on a balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street. For my part, I am content to base my decision on that ground and that ground alone.” P Q R S T T U U V V