Category Archives: Prostitution
Victory for sex workers’ safety
9 April 2010 in Luton Crown Court Claire Finch was found not guilty of a criminal charge of keeping a brothel. The jury, in line with public opinion, refused to criminalise Ms Finch for working together with friends from her own home for safety.
This prosecution was motivated by a moral crusade and financial incentives for the police. Since Proceeds of Crime legislation was introduced, police are able to keep any money resulting from raids.
This not guilty verdict greatly strengthens the case for prostitution to be decriminalised so that women are able to work more safely together as in New Zealand.
. . ACTION ALERT . . . ACTION ALERT . . . ACTION ALERT . . .
Dear Friends,
Please can you write immediately to Sarah Brown, sarah.brown2@cps.gsi.gov.uk, at Luton Crown Prosecution Service, using the letter below to express your concerns about Ms F who is being prosecuted for brothel-keeping, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
Ms F is a mother and was working with four friends for safety. She deliberately chose to work with more mature women because she said they were more able “to make their own minds up. They’re not being hoodwinked.
We enclose below our letter to the CPS with details of her case, asking for the prosecution to be dropped. The CPS replied refusing andthe case is going ahead on 2 November.
Please can you copy any letter you write to Nazir Afzal, Chief Prosecutor for London, nazir.afzal@cps.gsi.gov.uk, and to ourselves.
Working with the English Collective of Prostitutes, LAW has successfully pressed for prosecutions to be dropped against women, often in a similar situation as Ms F, and sometimes at the last minute in court. We hope we can have the same impact this time and prevent another woman’s life being blighted by a criminal record and possible prison sentence.
Many thanks,
Niki Adams
Legal Action for Women
Crossroads Women’s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU
Tel: 020 7482 2496 minicom/voice Fax: 020 7209 4761
E-mail: law@crossroadswomen.net
Sarah Brown
Crown Prosecution Service
Sceptre House
7 – 9 Castle St., Luton
Bedfordshire, LU1 3AJ
DX 120503 Luton 6
27 July 2009
Dear Sarah Brown,
We are writing on behalf of Ms F who has been charged under Section 33A of Sexual Offences Act 1956 with keeping/managing a brothel. Ms F is due to appear at Luton Magistrates Court tomorrow, July to be given a date for the Crown Court trial.
On 19 November 2008, 20 uniformed police officers, from Kempston Economic Crime Unit, kicked in Ms F front door and a side door and entered her home. They gave no reason for this raid. Ms F was not shown the officers’ identification or a warrant. The police searched every room in the house and Ms F’s personal belongings. They took £700 from her purse that had been put aside to pay the mortgage. As well as this money, her laptop computer, mobile phone, driving licence and passport were taken. No receipt was given for the cash or any of these items. Ms F was taken to Dunstable police station, questioned at length and charged with keeping/managing a brothel and with money laundering. Money laundering charges have since been dropped.
Ms F gave a full statement in which she admitted to providing sexual services. In her statement she explained that she invited four other women to work with her for safety and went to great lengths to ensure that there was never a time when a woman was left on her own in the house. The women worked in twos taking different shifts. Ms F is 48 years old. All the women she works with are over 35. Ms F deliberately chose to work with more mature women who are able “to make their own minds up. They’re not being hoodwinked . . .” Ms F has children and explained that because of this, working with inexperienced younger women “would not sit morally well with me.”
Since the November raid, Ms F has been forced to work alone. She is constantly fearful of attack and her health has been severely affected. She is suffering from depression, insomnia, and any sudden loud noises bring on a panic attack involving the memories of the raid, symptoms that we understand are consistent with post traumatic stress disorder. Her blood pressure has risen to a near dangerous level and relationships with some of her family have fractured. Her GP, who is extremely sympathetic, has prescribed anti-depressants and sleeping tablets, which she is now dependent upon.
We feel strongly that this is an abuse of process.
1. No evidence of force, coercion, violence, abuse or trafficking has been found by police. Ms F was working consensually and independently with friends in order to ensure everyone’s safety.
2. There have never been any complaints from neighbours or other local people against Ms F. She is well known and liked in the local community. Following the police raid on her home, her neighbours and her family have circulated a petition and are ready to come to court in her defence.
3. Ms F had good reason to believe that her working arrangements were sanctioned by the authorities. Up until the time of the raid in November 2008, her contact with local police had been based on their concern for her welfare. A few years ago, two local uniformed officers called at 10pm one Friday evening to warn her that a man was going around premises, refusing to pay for services and damaging the property. Having advised her about her own protection, the officers left. There have been no further police visits since.
In October 2008, David Dennis, a planning officer from South Bedfordshire County Council Planning Department visited her home. He informed Ms F that his department had received information that she was running a business from her home. She told him she had been working from home for ten years, and showed him around. He subsequently left a message on her ansaphone saying he was happy with his findings and would be putting it in writing, which he did on 29 October (enclosed).
4. There is widespread opposition including among members of parliament and peers to women being criminalised for working collectively and consensually, We call your attention to statements from ministers and other parliamentarians that women working together in premises should not be penalised. In 2006, Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart proposed changes to the prostitution laws:
“Where women are working for themselves and are not being managed or pimped on a large scale, in the interim it is probably more sensible not to use the very serious penalties we have against people who run brothels. Very small scale operations can operate in a way that is not disruptive to neighbours.” (Daily Telegraph 18 January 2006).
The Home Office has acknowledged:
“ . . .the present definition of brothel ran counter to advice that, in the interests of safety, women should not sell sex alone.” (The Times 18 January 2006).
During the Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill (19 January 2009) Minister of State, Alan Campbell spoke against the criminalisation of women who “were simply making cups of tea, keeping the diary and helping to keep the women safe”.
The Royal College of Nursing voted an overwhelming 93% at their annual congress in May to: “make recommendations to the UK government to allow up to four sex workers to work together legally before requiring a license”.
Public opposition to the criminalisation of women in precisely Ms F’s situation has forced the government to acknowledge, in law, the difference between consensual situations where sex workers are working voluntarily, and situations where women are being coerced. Clause 13 of the Policing and Crime Bill, which criminalises the purchase of sex, has been amended to replace “controlled for gain” with “force, deception or threats”.
You must be aware that there is a significant opposition within the police to women being criminalised in this way. A number of officers who dealt with Ms F indicated they didn’t agree with her being prosecuted and considered the investigation a waste of police resources.
5. Public opposition to the arrest and prosecution of sex workers is centred on concern for safety and an acknowledgment, particularly since the Ipswich murders, that criminalisation deters women from reporting violence and makes them more vulnerable to attack. We think the public would be horrified not only to know that this prosecution is being brought against Ms F but also at the waste of public resources.
The public is also increasingly concerned at police priorities which result in 20 officers raiding premises where women are working consensually, while the investigation of rape and other violence continues to be downgraded and dismissed.
6. There also concern that prosecutions of consenting sex are being fuelled by Proceeds of Crime legislation. Under this legislation, which is being strengthened by the Policing and Crime Bill, the police and courts are empowered to seize the assets of those “convicted of an offence in proceedings before the Crown Court”. Brothel-keeping was made an “either way offence” (one that can be tried in the Magistrates or Crown Court) in 2003. Any money confiscated as a result of these prosecutions is split between the Home Office, the CPS, the Courts Service and the police. The fact that Ms F’s home was raided by officers from the Economic Crime Unit, a unit focussed on “asset recovery”, and that her police interview was centred on gathering information about her income and assets, indicates that a desire to make money may be behind the raid.
All polls confirm that the public wants effective action against rape and other violent attacks to be the top police priority and would be understandably distressed if police priorities were being corrupted by an opportunity to profit.
7. Ms F’s situation is deserving of compassionate discretion. She went into this line of work because she was struggling to raise her two children single-handed. For over 17 years, her ex-husband has refused to pay any maintenance or child support so she has had to survive through her own endeavours.
8. Criminalisation institutionalises women in prostitution. Ms F has NO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS. If she is convicted it will ruin her chances of ever finding other employment as well as having other serious effects on her life.
9. This prosecution is not in the public interest. How can this prosecution be justified when there is no evidence of harm or nuisance being caused, and when a prosecution would inflict a criminal record on Ms F?
As you know, “The Code for Crown Prosecutors” specifies that “ . . . the decision to prosecute an individual is a serious step. . . . Even in a small case a prosecution has serious implications for all involved.”
Quoting Lord Shawcross when he was Attorney General, the Code reiterates the fundamental principle that even where there may be evidence which would seem to constitute an offence, discretion can and should be applied in deciding whether to prosecute:
“It has never been the rule in this country — I hope it never will be — that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution”.
(House of Commons Debates, volume 483, column 681, 29 January 1951.)
If this prosecution were to go ahead, many would view it as vindictive and persecutory.
We would be grateful if you would exercise your discretion and drop this prosecution.
Thanking you for your urgent attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Adams
Cc:
Nadine Dorries, MP
Nazir Afzal, Director, CPS London
Norman Costain, County Councillor,
Richard Newcombe, Chief Crown Prosecutor, Luton
Filed under Prostitution
Woman accused of running a “disorderly” house — letter to local police
Legal Action for Women
Crossroads Women’s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU
Tel: 020 7482 2496 minicom/voice Fax: 020 7209 4761
E-mail: law@crossroadswomen.net
Wendy Williams
Northumbria Chief Crown Prosecutor
CPS Northumbria, 122 Quayside
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3BD 17 September 2009
wendy.williams@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Wendy Williams,
Re: Ms S, Crown Court ref: URN 09006/3060
We write urgently on behalf of Ms S to ask for the charges of “running a disorderly house” and/or of “running a bawdy house under common law” to be immediately dropped.
Ms S was visited by the police at 33 Southwick Road, Sunderland, SR5 1EJ on 2 June. She was held and questioned, and then charged at Washington Police station on 11 August 2009 with “running a disorderly house”. She appeared at Hough-Le-Spring Magistrates’ Court on 21 August, where the Magistrate ruled that the charge does not exist, and he changed it to “running a bawdy house contrary to common law”. The case was then referred to the Crown Court, to be heard tomorrow, Friday 18 September. Yet the paperwork given to Ms S at the Magistrates’ Court still lists the charge as “running a disorderly house”.
Background
Ms S contacted us in June, and told us that two officers had stopped a man leaving her house about 4.30pm. After questioning, they let him go and then banged on her back door, shouting and demanding that she open it. Although Ms S fully co-operated, she was handcuffed. When she asked to change her clothes only one cuff was opened. Male officers stayed in the room while Ms S changed her clothes which she found very humiliating. Ms S was taken to Washington Police Station while officers came back and searched and took photographs inside the house. No warrant to search the premises was produced.
Ms S was held for about four hours and questioned. The police claimed that she was earning money by selling sex and said that this is a crime. Under which offence is this a crime? Ms S repeatedly told police officers that she was not doing anything illegal but was ignored. Officers made disparaging comments saying why didn’t Ms S “get a job in Primark”. I’m sure that you will agree that it is highly inappropriate for police to be offering employment advice and promoting shop work over the other (legal) ways that people find to make a living? Officers also tried to imply that Ms S was a morally corrupting influence by saying that “children were in the area”. What were they implying? What of anything that Ms S was doing would even come to the attention of children in the area? As a dedicated and caring mother herself, Ms S was particularly upset by this.
Ms S believes she was arrested because of complaints from a neighbour at 31 Southwick Road, who had targetted her for racist abuse and harassment since Christmas. Incidents include him verbally abusing Ms S in the street, calling her a “wog”, saying “go back where you come from . . . Black prostitute”, repeatedly throwing faeces on her window, and smashing her car window.
Ms S informed the police about the abuse on 12 March 2009 yet no police investigation has taken place. We have asked the police to investigate. Why did racist threats and abuse against Ms S go uninvestigated, yet police resources were used to investigate and prosecute her? There was no violence, illegality or coercion by Ms S, but she was handcuffed, interrogated, held for hours and threatened with prosecution on the basis of allegations that she is exchanging sexual services for money, alone and in private.
If no action is taken against the violent, threatening, committed racist, he will be given a licence to continue acting as he chooses. It is likely that his violence will escalate and be directed at other Black people, possibly causing serious injury.
Ms S is a survivor of sexual violence she suffered as a child. We first met her over ten years ago, when she contacted Black Women’s Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape and bravely came forward to give evidence against her abuser, a manager in a children’s home.
In summary, we ask you to immediately drop the charges because:
o The charge of “running a disorderly house” no longer exists. The charge of “running a bawdy house under common law” is so outdated it has hardly ever been used before. Why now?
o It is not in the public interest. Ms S was not causing any nuisance, but was herself the victim of ongoing racist abuse. She had made preparations to leave the premises weeks before she was arrested, because of the relentless harassment she had suffered.
o There is widespread and increasing public opposition, including among members of parliament and peers, to women being targetted and criminalised for working independently and consensually. In this case, there was no involvement by other people.
o Public opposition to arrest and prosecution of sex workers is centered on concern for public safety, and an acknowledgment, particularly since the Ipswich murders, that criminalisation deters women from reporting violence and makes them more vulnerable to attack.
o The public is also increasingly concerned at police priorities which result in police resources being used to raid premises where there is no violence or coercion, while the investigation of rape and other violence continues to be de-prioritised, downgraded and dismissed.
o This threat of prosecution has hung over Ms S for months, and is having a very detrimental effect on her health, and her family’s welfare. Ms S is supporting her two children, her daughter who is a university student and her severely disabled young son who has suffered from necrotizing enteritis since he was born. He is seriously ill and has had to undergo a series of operations, and she has had to work hard to provide extra care for him to raise his quality of life.
There is no justification for these charges against Ms S. As such, we have to consider that racism is at play in the way she is being targeted? If the prosecution goes ahead, many would view it as vindictive and persecutory. We therefore respectfully ask that you exercise your discretion and drop this prosecution.
We would also like an explanation from the police about the way Ms S was treated. Can you help with that? For example, is it usual to ask a woman to change her clothes in the presence of male officers? As a matter of urgency, can you also look into what is being done to investigate the racist attacks against Ms S?
Yours sincerely,
Niki Adams
cc David Gray solicitors
Rt Hon Michael Jack MP
Nazir Afzal, Director, CPS London
Legal Action for Women
Crossroads Women’s Centre
230a Kentish Town Road
London NW5 2AB
Tel: 020 7482 2496
Fax: 020 7209 4761
Email: law@crossroadswomen.net
Filed under Prostitution
Complaint re: police raids in Mayfair
Legal Action for Women
Crossroads Women’s Centre PO Box 287 London NW6 5QU
Tel: 020 7482 2496 minicom/voice Fax: 020 7209 4761
E-mail: law@crossroadswomen.net
Sir Paul Stephenson
Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
New Scotland Yard, 8-10 Broadway,
London, SW1H 0BG 19 March 2009
Dear Sir Paul Stephenson,
We write to complain about the visit by police officers from Charing Cross and West End Central police station on 17 March to five flats in Shepherds Market and Trebeck Street, London, W1. Women at the premises have reported to us that seven officers entered premises in neighbouring streets between 1-4pm. All the officers were in plain clothes and seemed to be wearing bullet proof jackets. Niki Adams from our organization was called by one of the women whilst she was being questioned and spoke to Sergeant Chris Scott, the officer in charge.
Women report that two officers initially came to the door. Ms A in Trebeck Street opened the door on the safety chain. The police officer showed his ID and then put his foot in the door. Ms A said that she recognized the officer from other visits and told him that there was no need for him to put his foot in the door as she would let him in. Ms B in Shepherd Market also recognized the police officer at the door and let them in. In both cases, five other officers came in behind the two officers. No warrant to search the premises was ever produced.
Officers started to search the premises opening drawers and asking for the key to a cupboard. Women were asked for their name and address, their mobile phone number and other questions such as whether they were responsible for the rent, how much they earned and whether they had been to prison. Officers asked for CCTV footage from cameras on the premises and in one case at least took the camera from the mounting, although CCTV is installed for women’s safety. Photos were taken by the police of the premises yet Ms Adams was specifically told by Sgt Scott that no photos were being taken. Some women were taken aside and asked if they were being forced to work. Other women were threatened with being prosecuted for controlling prostitution. One officer told a woman to go and get a job in Tescos. Others were told that the police intended to close the flats before the summer.
Shockingly, despite women being willing to answer questions, the police treated them rudely and disrespectfully. Officers stood inappropriately close to women’s faces and asked questions in a bullying and intimidatory way. When women responded, officers shouted at them that they were liars. One woman who had worked in the premises for 25 years was escorted from the premises and told that if police saw her there again she would be arrested.
The purpose of the visit was never explained to women. When Niki Adams asked Sgt Scott this he said the visit was as a result of complaints by local people. What is the nature of these complaints? Is this the police action that would be taken in response to complaints against any premises or business? Would the local corner shop be invaded in this way on the basis of unsubstantiated complaints? Would the police feel entitled to enter without a warrant, harass the occupants, take photos and make threats of prosecution?
Why are police time and resources being used to harass women working safely from premises? Public opinion, especially since the murders of five young women in Ipswich, has been resolutely against sex workers being persecuted and criminalized. People feel strongly that the priority for the police and courts should be protection. Women Against Rape, whom we work with closely, has in the last few days highlighted in the media cases where rape is systematically deprioritised by the police. If women are forced out of premises they will be made more vulnerable to violence – evidence shows that women working on the street are 10 times more likely to be attacked.
We would like an immediate explanation for this police action and an apology for the treatment women received.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Adams
Cc
Head of Clubs and Vice, Charing Cross Police Station
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Baroness Miller
Baroness Stern
Baroness Morris of Bolton
Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith MP
John McDonnell MP
Lord Faulkner
Lynne Jones MP
Mark Field MP
Filed under Prostitution