Street prostitutes: no expulsion orders unless they commit offences
They are unlawful if carried out solely by virtue of prostitution practised whilst wearing revealing clothing and in the absence of soliciting minors or other offences
Key points
It is unlawfulthe compulsory expulsion order imposed on the street prostitute, solely on the grounds of her working in skimpy clothing, if there is no evidence that she has committed offences, such as soliciting of minors or the breach of hygiene regulations during a pandemic. The Court of Cassation has upheld the appeals of a woman engaged in prostitution, who had challenged the ruling of the regional court, which had dismissed as inadmissible her appeal against her conviction for breaching the obligation to leave the city of Modena for three years, as ordered by the police commissioner. This measure was adopted under the Anti-Mafia Code, which provides for personal preventive measures against those who, on the basis of factual evidence, are considered to be engaged in criminal activity and pose a threat to public safety or the welfare of minors.
The absence of criminal offences
According to the Supreme Court, which quashed the decision and referred the case back, none of this emerged from the investigations; therefore, the appellant could not have been classified under persons posing a danger to public order. ‘The patrol team’s report of 24 June 2020 merely gave a general account of the act of prostitution alone, carried out on the street whilst wearing skimpy clothing,’ the judgement states, ‘without making any reference to any age difference of the people solicited, to the fact that their physical and moral integrity was endangered, or to the lack of precautions during a public health emergency’.
Nothing of a criminal nature, and therefore no danger to society, as the defence – whose appeal had been dismissed without any further examination – had adequately explained. The appellant ‘was not loitering near places usually frequented by minors, was not obstructing traffic, and it is not known how she was consuming sexual intercourse and, consequently, whether she used protection or not’. She was therefore brought within the scope of the Anti-Mafia Code as an automatic consequence of her prostitution activities.
The Supreme Court’s ruling thus sets out the scope within which the dispute may be resolved against the practice of prostitution in towns and cities, clarifying that an expulsion order is not lawful in the absence of conduct constituting a criminal offence.
