mega

Manchester Court Case

51 posts in this topic

There as been a few other incidents of visits to other premises in the area

including one been given a fine over a couple of health & safty issues I think it was £5000

but in the past places have been closed due to one girl claiming to be trafficked

& that was enough for the cps to prosicute (dolly mixtures)

so will be intresting to see the out come of this case as WFBs as been closed in salford & Bury (due to speculation into the owners other activities)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There as been a few other incidents of visits to other premises in the area

including one been given a fine over a couple of health & safty issues I think it was £5000

but in the past places have been closed due to one girl claiming to be trafficked

& that was enough for the cps to prosicute (dolly mixtures)

so will be intresting to see the out come of this case as WFBs as been closed in salford & Bury (due to speculation into the owners other activities)

WFB is still open in Bury.

The trouble is, its very hard to be squeaky clean if what your doing is illegal.

The no smoking law being the newest and easiest tool in the crime fighters tool box, a close second is prescription drugs AKA viagra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, its very hard to be squeaky clean if what your doing is illegal.

The no smoking law being the newest and easiest tool in the crime fighters tool box

If smoking is an integral part of an artistic performance, it is within the law to smoke in an enclosed space. Smoking BJs spring to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If smoking is an integral part of an artistic performance, it is within the law to smoke in an enclosed space. Smoking BJs spring to mind.

Not if that space is open to the public. (my understanding)

If that artist was performing from illegal premises it might not make the smoking illegal, just the reason it came on top.

I dont think a warrant is needed to inspect a premises for smoking. (I could be wrong)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if that space is open to the public. (my understanding)

If that artist was performing from illegal premises it might not make the smoking illegal, just the reason it came on top.

I dont think a warrant is needed to inspect a premises for smoking. (I could be wrong)

There are some theater productions that demand authenticy. Public are admitted to the space.

The local authority are the "police" (usually Trading Standards) and they require a warrant issued by the courts to access the premise. A further impediment to their willful attempt to prosecute would be whether they could access a room that may contain people copulating.

The real Police have no authority in the matter of the Smoking Ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some theater productions that demand authenticy. Public are admitted to the space.

The local authority are the "police" (usually Trading Standards) and they require a warrant issued by the courts to access the premise. A further impediment to their willful attempt to prosecute would be whether they could access a room that may contain people copulating.

The real Police have no authority in the matter of the Smoking Ban

If a parlor is open to the public why would they need a warrant, they would simply walk in, report their findings.

Should a door be locked and entry be denied I would accept a warrant must then be produced. Refusing entry would only attract police presence on the production of the warrant. win win

I am just a lay person and know nothing and my point is no matter how you play things your at the mercy of the powers that be. It is more a matter of when you get raided rather than if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I am aware, all the parlours local to me have the appropriate signs as required by the regulations.

I'm also told that the Council do inspect and the owners/managers are quite happy for them to do so. Anything for a quiet life.

The Council's powers of entry "at any reasonable hour" are contained in Schedule 2, Health Act 2006.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/28/schedule/2

If entry is refused then a Magistrates warrant is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as I am aware, all the parlours local to me have the appropriate signs as required by the regulations.

I'm also told that the Council do inspect and the owners/managers are quite happy for them to do so. Anything for a quiet life.

The Council's powers of entry "at any reasonable hour" are contained in Schedule 2, Health Act 2006.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/28/schedule/2

If entry is refused then a Magistrates warrant is required.

(a)at any reasonable hour, enter any premises

I would think during opening hours would come under reasonable, which if your a client is quite unreasonable.

Going back to where I started,

The trouble is, its very hard to be squeaky clean if what your doing is illegal.

The no smoking law being the newest and easiest tool in the crime fighters tool box,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a legal argument claiming “abuse of process”, namely, that the police had known for years what she was up to, but not acted.

I take it this counted for nothing

No longer is there a need for plain cloths, now its in full uniform but turning a blind eye :rolleyes:

We can conclude if the police visit you they are gathering evidence and building a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going back to the Manchester court case,its the money laundering that shut this parlour down ..

as a whole the parlours are left well alone as long as they abide by the unwritten rules of= no drugs, under age girls, illegals or tax fiddles/ money laundering .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going back to the Manchester court case,its the money laundering that shut this parlour down ..

as a whole the parlours are left well alone as long as they abide by the unwritten rules of= no drugs, under age girls, illegals or tax fiddles/ money laundering .

I think that you're correct about the money-laundering.

An abuse of process argument is difficult to prove, but by no means impossible.The owner of this brothel (Omega sauna)in Sheffield was successful:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Legal-victory-for-brothel-owner.2193921.jp

I would have thought that the established parlours in Manchester would have a slim chance as well.

Assuming that Marcia failed with the abuse of process argument( which she did) she would also have a fighting chance defending brothel-keeping charges. The conviction rate does appear to be falling as juries are becoming more sympathetic. Marcia was well respected in Manchester and there's a good chance that she would have been acquitted.

It's clear that the police weren't happy about her business partner Robert Taun and his money- laundering activities, and her brothels were raided as a result. She was probably advised to plead guilty in order to get a reduced sentence. A guilty verdict was fairly certain if she'd pleaded not guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you're correct about the money-laundering.

An abuse of process argument is difficult to prove, but by no means impossible.The owner of this brothel (Omega sauna)in Sheffield was successful:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Legal-victory-for-brothel-owner.2193921.jp

I would have thought that the established parlours in Manchester would have a slim chance as well.

Assuming that Marcia failed with the abuse of process argument( which she did) she would also have a fighting chance defending brothel-keeping charges. The conviction rate does appear to be falling as juries are becoming more sympathetic. Marcia was well respected in Manchester and there's a good chance that she would have been acquitted.

It's clear that the police weren't happy about her business partner Robert Taun and his money- laundering activities, and her brothels were raided as a result. She was probably advised to plead guilty in order to get a reduced sentence. A guilty verdict was fairly certain if she'd pleaded not guilty.

The cost of the police operation was over a million and me thinks they wont be leaving that door open for long. It simply forces the hand of the police to now do something about it with anything new and close anything old by fair or fowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of the police operation was over a million and me thinks they wont be leaving that door open for long. It simply forces the hand of the police to now do something about it with anything new and close anything old by fair or fowl.

To my jaundiced mind one of the most appalling legacies of the Blair / Brown years is POCA. No longer do Chief Constables prioritise the use of their (inevitably) limited resources to the areas of greatest need, but now their Chief Accountants advise them where they are likely to reap the richest dividend.

Would it be very wrong to think that the Police allowed the lady and her "partner" a lot of rope, so that when they went in, they had the opportunity of getting a rich harvest?

Abuse of Process is an uphill path - in my trade, we call it "condonation" and it has never been easy. I can't remember even one case within my time when it has succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my jaundiced mind one of the most appalling legacies of the Blair / Brown years is POCA. No longer do Chief Constables prioritise the use of their (inevitably) limited resources to the areas of greatest need, but now their Chief Accountants advise them where they are likely to reap the richest dividend.

Would it be very wrong to think that the Police allowed the lady and her "partner" a lot of rope, so that when they went in, they had the opportunity of getting a rich harvest?

Abuse of Process is an uphill path - in my trade, we call it "condonation" and it has never been easy. I can't remember even one case within my time when it has succeeded.

I totally agree.

POCA is one of those headline grabbing good ideas with a multitude of unintended consequences. There is much that appeals to the "average person" in ensuring that wrongdoers donot profit from crime. But it would by much more in line with Blair's talk of the communities blighted by crime, and cameron's "big society" if those proceeds where put to a fund that supported social initiateves and in some way made up for the damage that funding cuts will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did she plead guilty? Does this actually reduce the sentence, I did not think we had US style plea bargaining in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did she plead guilty? Does this actually reduce the sentence, I did not think we had US style plea bargaining in this country.

Clearly she was running a brothel. I suspect that there was enough evidence including a paper trail to clearly show that she was involved in money laundering.It was the money laundering and her involvement with Mr. Taun that proved fatal.

There are statutory guidelines relating to guilty pleas and reduced sentences:

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/Reduction_in_Sentence_for_a_Guilty_Plea_-Revised_2007.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly she was running a brothel. I suspect that there was enough evidence including a paper trail to clearly show that she was involved in money laundering.It was the money laundering and her involvement with Mr. Taun that proved fatal.

There are statutory guidelines relating to guilty pleas and reduced sentences:

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/Reduction_in_Sentence_for_a_Guilty_Plea_-Revised_2007.pdf

Money laudering covers all forms of handling the proceeds of crime, so will inevitably be part of running a brothel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money laudering covers all forms of handling the proceeds of crime, so will inevitably be part of running a brothel.

The prosecution will rarely prosecute as an additional charge unless there has been wilful and deliberate acts of concealment.Buy a house, cars,holidays, put in a building society etc and nothing will happen. However, if you launder the proceeds through a furniture shop in Levenshulme (as they did) then you're in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly she was running a brothel. I suspect that there was enough evidence including a paper trail to clearly show that she was involved in money laundering.It was the money laundering and her involvement with Mr. Taun that proved fatal.

There are statutory guidelines relating to guilty pleas and reduced sentences:

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/docs/Reduction_in_Sentence_for_a_Guilty_Plea_-Revised_2007.pdf

And so clearly was Claire Finch. It would also be better to argue the case, the police knew in front of a jury rather than some judge or magistrate.

Also if she was clearly running a brothel, then the reduction would not be the maximum suggested.

Edited by elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so clearly was Claire Finch. It would also be better to argue the case, the police knew in front of a jury rather than some judge or magistrate.

Claire Finch came across very well on television and I'm sure that she would come across well in court. She had a lot of support, including her neighbours. I'm not surprised that she was found not guilty. Let's not forget though, she was running a brothel. A different court, different jury and different judge may well have produced a different verdict.

Marcia was very well respected in Manchester but she went into partnership with somebody that the GMP had their eye on. GMP are very tolerant of brothels provided that they are well run. GMP don't like villains running brothels, especially when they're laundering cash through another business.

The two situations are very different.I'm not surprised Marcia decided to plead guilty.

I think that for most women charged with brothel offences it would be worth the risk to plead not-guilty and elect for jury trial.To a certain extent that would apply to a man, but I think that juries are almost always going to be more sympathetic to women running brothels rather than men.

I don't know what other evidence the police had against Marcia but she was obviously advised (rightly or wrongly) to plead guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcia got 10 months inside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344077/Nurse-brothel-madam-jailed-saying-NHS-wages-enough.html

A 68-year-old nurse who claimed she was forced to become a brothel madam by her NHS wages has been jailed for running two massage parlours.

Marcia Howard was sentenced to 10 months for her part in the businesses, which enabled her to earn upwards of £50,000 a year as a part-owner.

At Manchester Crown Court, Howard fought back tears as she admitted keeping two brothels and money laundering.

At least eight women operated as call girls at Hayley's Health Spa in Burnage and Whitefield, Greater Manchester in the 1990s.

However, Howard claimed she couldn't be prosecuted because police in Manchester operated a unique tolerance policy which had allowed her to pedle her trade as long as she didn't use underage girls.

The mother-of-one launched Hayley's Health Spa in Burnage during the 1990s after working as a nurse for the NHS, opening Hayley's 2 in Whitefield soon after with her then business partner Paul Taun.

The successful company ran advertisements in local newspapers until the publications stopped accepting their ads, at which point they turned to online advertising and ads on review sites like punternet.co.uk.

Following Taun's death in 2007, his brother Robert Taun, 51, inherited his share of the company and set about upgrading the existing premises, installing bondage rooms and TV lounges.

He's estimated to have made £112,000 in the two-year period between 2007 and 2009 before he was caught.

Prosecuting, Tina Landale said Howard was unhappy with the change and ceased her involvement in the day-to-day running of the brothels, but received £1,000 a week as an equity partner with a 50 per cent share in the company until police raided the premises in May 2009.

She said: 'Police recorded video footage of rooms with individual and double beds, a profile book with pictures of the girls, showers and TV lounges.

'There were two receptionists and three scantily clad women in their underwear working.'

Police found evidence of eight prostitutes working at the Burnage site.

Ms Landale added: 'When interviewed by police, Marcia Howard said that she owned a half share of the business.

'She said she didn't know it was a brothel and thought it was a sauna where lonely men had a drink and a massage from pretty girls. She said she didn't know that the money was the proceeds of crime.'

However, when police raided her home they found material on her computer for promoting and advertising the brothel's services.

The court heard she gave advice to the girls working there on what kind of underwear to wear and how to conduct themselves, and the judge rejected the claim that she didn't know what the business was.

After bail, Howard withdrew £26,000 from her account, claiming it was to pay utility bills and was charged with laundering the amount of £148,000 she was found to have earned in the between May 2004 and March 2007.

At an initial hearing, Howard and Taun's defence counsel complained of abuse of process, that police led them to believe they couldn't be prosecuted for running a brothel.

The police admitted visiting the brothel to check on the girls' welfare, but said they had never led her to believe it was legal, and the claim was rejected.

But in mitigation, Mr Mark Smith said Greater Manchester Police had a 'unique' policy of tolerating well-run brothels, which operated overtly.

'This city is unique in the UK in the way the police approach the prosecution of brothels.

'It's a flourishing business. There are in this city many premises, overt and successful companies, which employ a large number of people.

'It's not a defence but it's a fact the court must take into account.

'This is not a case of the police turning a blind eye. The police were fully aware and had a policy of tolerating well-run and legitimately organised sex business.

'They were fully aware and accepting of these premises, as long as they didn't offend the code of not employing under age workers, coercing workers and if there were no drugs involved.

'That's what makes this city unique. Marcia Howard did not try to do anything under-handed or sneaky, she wasn't thumbing her nose at the police.'

Also in mitigation, Mr Smith said she used the money to care for her son, who has Asperger's syndrome, and that she paid taxes on what was a legitimately-run business.

Representing Robert Taun, Miss Nina Grahame said Taun took over the business to continue to give their parents the money they had come to rely on in the twenty years his brother Paul had been in the business, without knowing where the money came from.

Passing sentence Judge David Hernandez said: 'The facts are that from the late 1990s, you Marcia Howard owned Hayley's Health Spa along with Paul Taun, operated from two premises.

'Paul Taun died in March 2007 and that's how Robert Taun inherited his share of the business.

'These were brothels. Sex was being offered and you both knew what was happening over a significant period of time.

'Maybe you distanced yourself a little after his death but it's quite clear that you knew what was going on and benefited financially from what was going on.

'I accept that until the police investigated Robert Taun the police didn't seek to commence an investigation but when they executed a search warrant in March 2009 and August 2009 there was evidence found linking both Taun and Howard to the premises and when you were interviewed you each admitted to receiving £1,000 a week from the business.

'When the police raided Hayley's they found clear evidence of sexual activity taking place.

'They found three prostitutes there were no complaints and there's no evidence of any coercion.'

Judge Hernandez added that the aggravating features included the length of time it went on and the amount of money made.

Taking into account Howard's advanced age and the fact that Taun posed a low risk of re-offending, Judge Hernandez gave Taun 12 months in prison to run concurrently on the two counts of keeping a brothels and the count of acquiring criminal property, while Howard received ten months for the offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire Finch came across very well on television and I'm sure that she would come across well in court. She had a lot of support, including her neighbours. I'm not surprised that she was found not guilty. Let's not forget though, she was running a brothel. A different court, different jury and different judge may well have produced a different verdict.

Marcia was very well respected in Manchester but she went into partnership with somebody that the GMP had their eye on. GMP are very tolerant of brothels provided that they are well run. GMP don't like villains running brothels, especially when they're laundering cash through another business.

The two situations are very different.I'm not surprised Marcia decided to plead guilty.

I think that for most women charged with brothel offences it would be worth the risk to plead not-guilty and elect for jury trial.To a certain extent that would apply to a man, but I think that juries are almost always going to be more sympathetic to women running brothels rather than men.

I don't know what other evidence the police had against Marcia but she was obviously advised (rightly or wrongly) to plead guilty.

While I agree with all that you say, I think if ever there was a better example of that case, then this case is that case (per Serjeant Arabin) in as much as the law ought to be certain - I won't try to improve on Lord Reid's remarks in his 1973 speech in Knuller Ltd's (unsuccessful) appeal to the House of Lords -“I dissented in Shaw's case. On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act.”

It seems that the police at whim (or more likely either having their tails twisted by a chippy Councillor on the Police Authority, over next year's budget) can decide to raid and prosecute a brothel which they have tolerated for years. This is utterly wrong, and, in my not very respectful opinion should be stamped on firmly by CPS with "no public interest in a prosecution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now