Print document
 88 of 94 
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: You are not at any stage seeking to rely on the conversations to say
Mr. Smith was being run by Viktor; you are relying on the actions of E rather than the conversations
of Oschenko?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: What I am saying is that the conversations on the facts of this case
are part and parcel of the relationship between E and Viktor Oschenko, and it is only by looking at
what was said and done that you can ascertain the nature of the relationship. In my submission, that
you are entitled to do that is evident from what Lord Oliver went on to say at 269 when he was
dealing with Woodhouse v. Hall at B. He said he found it difficult to follow the Court’s reasonings --
he was talking about Lloyd L.J. in the Court of Appeal by that remark -- and describes the facts of
Woodhouse v. Hall. He then went on at C:
“That evidence was tendered as direct evidence and solely for the purpose of establishing ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: He says first of all that case involved no question whatever of the
admission of hearsay evidence.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Indeed, I meant to cite that. That is what I say about this case, that
it is, with the rule against hearsay, the evidence sought to be tendered, and he explained why it was
at C:
“That evidence was tendered as direct evidence and solely for the purpose of establishing that the
premises were being used as a brothel. It was direct evidence of disorderly conduct by persons
employed at the premises and was no more hearsay than would have been, for instance, evidence of
a written notice on the premises advertising the services available, or evidence tendered by police
officers of witnessing a lewd exhibition. The case is, as it seems to me, not remotely parallel to the
instant case.”
I would submit that R. v. Kearley is not remotely parallel to our case either for the reasons that he
there gives.
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: I go on reading if I may for the moment. (Pause) All right, yes, I wanted
to be certain what it said.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: He deals with it ----
MR. JUSTICE BLOFELD: Yes, all right, thank you.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: ---- there and over the page.
MR. TANSEY: May I address your Lordship on Woodhouse v. Hall, because it seems to me that
does not assist at all. The reason in that case why it was not hearsay evidence was because the
defendants were charged with running a disorderly house and, when the police officers went into the
premises, two of the persons involved in running the premises, the employees who were therefore
part of the process of running it, effectively offered these services. Therefore what was said to the
police officers was clear offering of the very services which constituted running the disorderly house.