Furthermore, Section 2 of the Street Offences Act 1959 provides that where a woman is cautioned by a constable, in respect of her conduct in a street or public place, that if she persists in such conduct it may result in her being charged with an offence under section one of the Act, the woman, within fourteen clear days afterwards, must apply to a magistrates' court for an order directing that there is to be no entry made in respect of that caution in any record maintained by the police of those so cautioned and that any such entry already made is to be expunged. The court will make the order unless satisfied that on the occasion when she was cautioned she was loitering or soliciting in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. Such application made by a woman shall be by way of complaint against the chief officer of police for the area in which the woman is cautioned or against such officer of police as he may designate for the purpose in relation to that area or any part of it. On the hearing of such complaint, the procedure shall be the same as if it were a complaint by the police officer against the woman. But unless the woman desires that the proceedings shall be conducted in public, an application will be heard and determined in camera.
In the case of DPP v Bull,1 the trial court ruled that a male prostitute cannot be a common prostitute within the meaning of the Street Offences Act 1959 s. 1(1). Defendant was charged with being a common prostitute under the Street Offences Act 1959 s. 1(1). The magistrates' court dismissed the information against him on the ground that there was no case to answer since the section applied only to female prostitutes. The matter was appealed by way of case stated, contending that the language of the statute was not gender specific. On appeal, it was held that a male prostitute cannot be a common prostitute within the meaning of s. 1(1) which makes it an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution since that section applies only to female prostitutes: R. v De Munck (Augusta)  1 K.B. 635 CCA.
Thus, Topaz' conduct in operating as a prostitute on the corner of Boulsdon Street may expose her to a possible charge of soliciting or loitering for purposes of prostitution.
It is noteworthy that landlady Rose may be prosecuted for brothel keeping and exploitation of prostitution. Under sections 33 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and 33A (as inserted by the Sexual Offences Act 2003) it is an offence to keep a brothel. "Keeping" includes managing or assisting in the management of the brothel. Also, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for anyone to cause or incite a person to become a prostitute in any part of the world (section 52). Further, it is an offence