women in london

By the English Collective of Prostitutes
Co-ordinators of the SAFETY FIRST COALITION

CLAUSE 14: An offence of “Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.” was passed on Tuesday, when an amendment by Baroness Miller which would have removed the strict liability aspect of the offence, was defeated.

No serious consideration was given to the way in which it a) establishes a two-tier offence so that having sex with a woman in the sex industry who is forced will attract a much lesser sentence (a fine) than the existing offence of rape or sexual assault.) See Women Against Rape’s statement: http://www.womenagainstrape.net) b) deprives the client of all legal defence as the offence is committed regardless of whether he “is, or ought to be, aware that any of [the sex worker’s] activities are controlled for gain” and undermines a fundamental principle of the law that “intention” is needed to prove guilt. Like with ASBOs where hearsay evidence was allowed to become commonplace, prostitution is being used to undermine fundamental rights, no doubt with dangerous consequences.

The public consistently demonstrates its concern that sex workers’ are protected from violence, most noticeably in the aftermath of the Ipswich murders but also in the last few days where a poll found that 2/3 of people agreed that sex workers should be allowed to work together for safety. In contrast the government’s spokesperson Baroness Scotland described sex workers as ‘damaged goods’; showing what they think of us — first of all as ‘goods’ and then as ‘damaged’.

CLAUSE 16: Soliciting is persistent “if it takes place twice over a period of three months”. (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller)

Soliciting which takes place more than once in three months cannot be described as persistent and could more appropriately be called “occasional”. To label it as persistent shows an intention to criminalise. It makes a mockery of the abolition of the term common prostitute (Clause 16 (2) (a)) as it will bring no reduction in the number of women arrested.

Criminal records prevent women from getting out of prostitution. Women end up institutionalised as they cannot get other jobs, even when they are qualified for them.

Criminalisation breaks up families. Mothers end up in jail separated from their children, with disastrous consequences first of all for the children.

Criminalisation makes sex workers more vulnerable to violence preventing women coming forward to report abuse. Recent research from Vancouver found that: “The persistent relationship between enforcement of prostitution and drug use policies (e.g. confiscation of drug use paraphernalia without arrest, and enforced displacement to outlying areas) suggests that criminalization may enhance the likelihood of violence against street-based female sex workers.”[1]

CLAUSE 17: “Orders requiring attendance at meetings” – Compulsory “rehabilitation” under threat of imprisonment. (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller)

Compulsory rehabilitation was thrown out of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill a year ago. Why is it being brought back? Anyone arrested for loitering or soliciting would have to attend three meetings with a supervisor approved by the court. It is not an alternative to a fine as failure to comply may result in a summons back to court and an unspecified period in jail. Women could end up on a treadmill of broken supervision meetings, court orders and imprisonment. Imprisoning women goes against recommendations of the widely respected Corston report (March 2007).

CLAUSE 19: “Soliciting for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.” (proposed amendment by Baroness Miller, Lord Pannick)

The Bill removes the only safeguard against false arrest. Why give police such wide powers? Kerb-crawling is an offence if it is “persistent”. Removing the requirement to prove “persistence, annoyance or nuisance” would increase police powers to arrest anyone on ‘sus’. Victims of institutionalised police racism and other prejudice are likely to be targeted. With a conviction rate for reported rape at a shameful 6%, why isn’t rape being prioritised over prostitution? Given recent public condemnation of police widely abusing their powers under anti-terrorism legislation to target peaceful protesters and others, why is this protection against any false arrest being removed?

CLAUSE 21: Extending closure orders to brothels.

Closure Orders are already being brought against premises where drug use or “disorder or nuisance” are alleged based on “tenuous evidence in which hearsay evidence is admissible.” (See briefing by Release).

In February, we won a rare victory against a Closure Order. Police claimed that women in two flats in Soho encouraged anti-social behaviour. When examined in court, the police case was based on ONE third hand anonymous hearsay claim. We countered with evidence from local people who appeared in person in court and prevented women being evicted from the safety of their flats. This case exposed the shameful flimsiness of evidence commonly used to close premises. http://www.prostitutescollective.net/soho_raids_evening_standard_feb18.htm

The police expect most sex workers to be unable to come forward for fear of exposure and most magistrates to rubber stamp their action. Instead of protecting the right to a fair trial, the Bill would lower the evidence threshold even further.

The new clauses would remove the need for anti-social behaviour to be proved. Where the police believe that certain offences are being committed or “will be committed” including “causing, inciting and/or controlling prostitution for gain” they can close premises and the occupants must, within 48 hours, go to court to defend the closure. Few people would even be able to get legal representation in this time. “Controlling” is already being used to criminalise women working independently, collectively and consensually especially where there is a receptionist for protection. Women will be thrown out of premises where it is 10 times safer to work than the street.

CLAUSE 27: Lap-dancing to be reclassified as “sex encounter establishments”.

This would increase the cost of licensing and the stigma. Lap-dancers have described working collectively with other women with good safety systems, and earning more than they would in other jobs. Is this what the government finds objectionable?

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Police and prosecutors have a vested interest in raiding brothels and prosecuting sex workers. This corrupting of the police has wide implications for all policing and prosecutions.

Since the Proceeds of Crime Act, raids have become profitable: the police keep 25% of any assets confiscated both at the time and from subsequent prosecutions (50% of any cash found on the premises); the Crown Prosecution Service keeps another 25%; and the Inland Revenue the rest. We have reported to the police and CPS that it has become common for police to seize any money found on premises they raid, even if no one is charged. The money is rarely returned as police take advantage of sex workers’ reluctance to go public. Women who have worked for years to put money aside lose not only their livelihood but their home, car, life savings, jewellery, etc. This theft by law enforcement is the worst form of pimping.

We believe it is a main reason why anti-prostitution raids and prosecutions are now high up on the police and government agenda. Government figures provided in response to questions by Lord Faulkner show a marked increase in prosecutions for controlling prostitution and brothel-keeping – neither offence requires force or coercion to be proved and are used primarily against women working consensually and collectively from premises.

The new clauses allow property to be seized before a person is charged where “a criminal investigation has started . . . and there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct”. They also expand the definition of an “appropriate officer” to implement these powers to include for example “an accredited financial investigator”.

SUMMARY

The Safety First Coalition agrees with the English Collective of Prostitutes that forcing prostitution further underground endangers lives. Safety First includes anti-poverty campaigners, church people & residents from Ipswich & elsewhere, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers, members of the medical & legal professions, prison reformers, sex worker & drugs rehabilitation projects. If prostitution is forced further underground women will be exposed to greater dangers and be less able to come forward to get help. See separate quotes from members of Safety First.

The Policing and Crime Bill is going through Parliament at the same time as the Welfare Reform Bill which will have a devastating impact on women and what’s left of the Welfare State. As the economic recession hits, more women, especially mothers, are likely to resort to prostitution to support their families. Together these Bills are legislating for destitution and prostitution, and therefore the criminalisation of many more women and the neglect of many more children.

New Zealand successfully decriminalised all prostitution, both indoors and on the street, six years ago. There has been no increase in prostitution and women find it safer. Why isn’t New Zealand being followed?

Key Facts On Women’s Safety And Legal Rights

---