A magazine published ads by homosexuals, asking other homosexuals to meet with them and have sex. HL upheld publisher’s conviction for conspiracy to corrupt public morals since (1) the offence existed, and (2) this case was comparable to Shaw, and (3) even if Shaw was wrongly decided, then it was for parliament to change the law. However the HL allowed an appeal agains the charge of “public outrage” since no such offence existed.