ghty

A Flat With 2 Girls = Brothel?

30 posts in this topic

I've just read that if two escort is working in the same house or flat, under the law it becomes a brothel. Even if it they work different time or day.

I know it is extremely unlikely to get "raided" by the police in this case. But what would happen if it did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read that if two escort is working in the same house or flat, under the law it becomes a brothel. Even if it they work different time or day.

I know it is extremely unlikely to get "raided" by the police in this case. But what would happen if it did?

The operators of the flat would be charged with keeping a brothel

plod may want to know your indentity but you should ask what offence they are suspecting you of before telling them. If they suspect the girls are coereced then they may suspect you of an offence. but they need evidence to have that suspiscion. if they have no evidence of coercion then they should let you leave without hinderance.

but that needs the plod to know the law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The operators of the flat would be charged with keeping a brothel

plod may want to know your indentity but you should ask what offence they are suspecting you of before telling them. If they suspect the girls are coereced then they may suspect you of an offence. but they need evidence to have that suspiscion. if they have no evidence of coercion then they should let you leave without hinderance.

but that needs the plod to know the law...

Thanks for your answer

So basically assisting a brother is not illegal unless the girls are forced/underage/etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been several threads in the past, the most recent of which is this one:

So basically assisting a brother is not illegal unless the girls are forced/underage/etc?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It's not illegal to visit a brothel.

It is illegal to pay or promise to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to exploitative conduct ie. subject to force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or....deception.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/26/section/14

That offence applies to any prostitute, whether she works alone or in a brothel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your answer

So basically assisting a brother is not illegal unless the girls are forced/underage/etc?

Assisting in the management of a brothel is illegal, but visiting a brothel is not "assisting" them in anything, they're running the brothel just fine without you. Like Silverado I'm confused by your use of the word "assist". All you're doing is paying for sex. It's not illegal for you to pay someone for sex unless they're underage (<18) or being forced by someone else.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I rented a flat with another girl with the only purpose being to entertain clients on separate occasions to keep down costs, would this be illegal? I am fairly sure that if we were entertaining at the same time that might be a problem but I am less clear as to whether two girls sharing rent on a flat is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think - only think - that the premises being used by two people even at different times would indeed make it a brothel within the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think - only think - that the premises being used by two people even at different times would indeed make it a brothel within the law.

Oh, FFS! Why bother trying to think? Assuming that you are punting in England&Wales just read it here (this link has been posted n times) http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/

It's only about 7k words, and gives a pretty good oversight of the prosecution's view of the scene.

Edited by Irgendeiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I rented a flat with another girl with the only purpose being to entertain clients on separate occasions to keep down costs, would this be illegal?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Yes, indeed, but you are pretty unlikely to be troubled by Mr Plod. The tenant (the WG who signs the tenancy agreement) is the one who could be charged with Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 33, keeping a brothel; (Magistrates' Court only) or Section 33A keeping, managing, acting or assisting in the management of a brothel to which people resort for practises involving prostitution, which can be taken in the Mags, or, if CPS are feeling spiteful, or the case is thought to be "more serious", on indictment in the Crown Court. The second WG, who just comes in as an indie, when the other is not on duty, slips (elegantly) through the net, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed, but you are pretty unlikely to be troubled by Mr Plod. The tenant (the WG who signs the tenancy agreement) is the one who could be charged with Sexual Offences Act 1956, Section 33, keeping a brothel; (Magistrates' Court only) or Section 33A keeping, managing, acting or assisting in the management of a brothel to which people resort for practises involving prostitution, which can be taken in the Mags, or, if CPS are feeling spiteful, or the case is thought to be "more serious", on indictment in the Crown Court. The second WG, who just comes in as an indie, when the other is not on duty, slips (elegantly) through the net, I think.

Oh, I realise that, but the lady asked a straight question and I thought that, just occasionally, a straight answer wouldn't do any harm :P. Brothel - yes; will anybody care - unlikely (increase variable according to location, race/nationality of ladies sadly, and how much of a nuisance you plan to make of yourselves in terms of noise, late night visitors and so on).

As I understand, the hotel in which I am currently sitting, a premises where people who are not married have sex with one another (sometimes with the exchange of payment, sometimes not) is also technically a brothel by virtue of this if the law is followed to the letter. I don't think the proprietors have too much to worry about ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second WG, who just comes in as an indie, when the other is not on duty, slips (elegantly) through the net, I think.

Unless the CPS decide to prosecute them jointly, which is quite possible if they are in the enterprise together but the tenancy is taken in the sole name of one for convenience reasons only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the CPS decide to prosecute them jointly, which is quite possible if they are in the enterprise together but the tenancy is taken in the sole name of one for convenience reasons only.

or do her for aiding and abetting or conspiring...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you every one for all the information, much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you every one for all the information, much appreciated.

But are you any the wiser? No disrespect to the respondents, just that the law is an ass (arse?)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assisting in the management of a brothel is illegal, but visiting a brothel is not "assisting" them in anything, they're running the brothel just fine without you. Like Silverado I'm confused by your use of the word "assist". All you're doing is paying for sex. It's not illegal for you to pay someone for sex unless they're underage (<18) or being forced by someone else.

I really meant to be saying "visit", just used the wrong word before. Thanks for the reply though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really meant to be saying "visit", just used the wrong word before. Thanks for the reply though.

Possibly a dumb question, but what the hell ........

If two non-connected WG's separately booked a room in a hotel when on tour, and entertained clients from their rooms, would that make the hotel a brothel.

and

if the night porter or duty manager was aware of two or more WG's operating in the hotel and was "assisting" them by turning a blind eye for a small gratuity would that make the hotel complicit in running a brothel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly a dumb question, but what the hell ........

If two non-connected WG's separately booked a room in a hotel when on tour, and entertained clients from their rooms, would that make the hotel a brothel.

and

if the night porter or duty manager was aware of two or more WG's operating in the hotel and was "assisting" them by turning a blind eye for a small gratuity would that make the hotel complicit in running a brothel?

No, not a dumb question atall!

An Irish District Magistrate, earlier this year, did hold, at first instance, that where two EE girls both took rooms in an hotel, they were operating a brothel. He fined them everything they had, then with a dash of common sense, realised that if they hadn't a euro-cent, there was only one think that they could do to get the cash to leave town, so told the Gardai to give them a bit back, and give them a lift to Cork!

I think that the answer in England&Wales law is simply that I don't know! Depends very much on how daring CPS are feeling (and personalities in the office - is there a rampant feminist among them, and is there the prospect of a really serious POCA heist) and what they know about the views of the Circuit Judge who they will try to put the case before!

In the first case, I think that CPS would probably accept, albeit reluctantly, that each WG's room was, temporarily, her home, and so, separate, so no brothel - if they and the Police are feeling shitty, they'll tell the hotel manager that his hotel is being used as a brothel, and he doesn't want the publicity, which would lead the owners to sack him, does he? The Police then, really kindly, offer to knock loudly on the WG's door and tell her to pack and leave pronto, on behalf of the manager!

In your second case, I think that if the Police get the impression that the George / Holiday Inn or whatever, "there" is WG friendly, they might well, after giving the gipsy's warning once, come in heavy and arrest a few people (for anything that sounds good at the time) leak the "raid" to the press, the release those arrested on Police Bail. Hotel owners will issue a sanctimonious Press Release, and sack the Manager, Night Manager, Head Porter and a few others for good measure.....

Oh, what fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If two non-connected WG's separately booked a room in a hotel when on tour, and entertained clients from their rooms, would that make the hotel a brothel.

and

if the night porter or duty manager was aware of two or more WG's operating in the hotel and was "assisting" them by turning a blind eye for a small gratuity would that make the hotel complicit in running a brothel?

No.

There was an old 1907 case called Durose v Wilson where there was a large building divided into 18 flats, each self-contained and let to separate tenants, 12 of whom were prostitutes. The night porter used to lock the main door at midnight and then until 2.00am he would admit the women and their clients. It was held that the premises were a brothel and he was convicted.

Some people (and organisations) have used this case as authority to suggest that in the scenario that you have proposed, the whole hotel would be treated as a brothel. They have also suggested that if Girl A has a tenancy of Flat 127 Nelson Mandela Towers and another unconnected girl B rents Flat 318 in the same tower block, then the whole building also becomes a brothel.

I don't think that Durose v Wilson is authority for either view. In Strath v Foxon [1956], the respondent let the first and second floors to one prostitute and the third floor to another. The premises shared a kitchen on the second floor, a street door and a staircase. The Divisional Court held that there was evidence to support the magistrates' finding that there existed two separate lettings of two separate flats and no common user other than the joint user of the kitchen. On those facts, the court concluded that the premises did not constitute a brothel.

I don't see any inconsistency between those decisions.

That's the law as I see it as supported by paragraphs 11.15 and 11.42 -11.46 of my copy of Rook and Ward on "Sexual Offences- Law & Practice" (4th Edition).

http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=4061&productid=332004&searchorigin=Rook+

In practice though (ie. the real world) I agree with the last part of Irgendeiner's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

There was an old 1907 case called Durose v Wilson where there was a large building divided into 18 flats, each self-contained and let to separate tenants, 12 of whom were prostitutes. The night porter used to lock the main door at midnight and then until 2.00am he would admit the women and their clients. It was held that the premises were a brothel and he was convicted.

Some people (and organisations) have used this case as authority to suggest that in the scenario that you have proposed, the whole hotel would be treated as a brothel. They have also suggested that if Girl A has a tenancy of Flat 127 Nelson Mandela Towers and another unconnected girl B rents Flat 318 in the same tower block, then the whole building also becomes a brothel.

I don't think that Durose v Wilson is authority for either view. In Strath v Foxon [1956], the respondent let the first and second floors to one prostitute and the third floor to another. The premises shared a kitchen on the second floor, a street door and a staircase. The Divisional Court held that there was evidence to support the magistrates' finding that there existed two separate lettings of two separate flats and no common user other than the joint user of the kitchen. On those facts, the court concluded that the premises did not constitute a brothel.

I don't see any inconsistency between those decisions.

That's the law as I see it as supported by paragraphs 11.15 and 11.42 -11.46 of my copy of Rook and Ward on "Sexual Offences- Law & Practice" (4th Edition).

http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=4061&productid=332004&searchorigin=Rook+

In practice though (ie. the real world) I agree with the last part of Irgendeiner's post.

The intriguing thing about all this law is not the law itself but what it reveals about our collective hang-ups.

the first few sections of the CPS document, linked by Irgendeiner, are a classic example of a policy formed not by objective research or reason but formed to fit a particular pre-conception.

I very much doubt that any agency facilitated the "exit from prostitution" of any of my retired favourites. They all left when it had done what they needed; not of them have returned as far as I can find out.

The real mess ups occurred when one or two were found out and given a very painful time by family - usually female members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the CPS guidance indicates that "maids" should be charged if their assistance is crucial to the operation of the brothel or they have been involved for a long period of time, especially where the premises have underage, coerced or trafficked women. It also suggests that if the assistance is minor or over a short period of time, a prosecution may not be in the public interest. In the Leeds case, 6 of the 8 women were cautioned, in all probability, for this offence but there is no indication of trafficking etc.

This may suggest either:

1. that the evidence required by the Police for them to offer a caution may not need to be of the same quality/quantity as that which they require to proceed with a prosecution. If this is correct, it appears to be a major anomaly to me, as I understood that they have to be satisfied that, with the information available to them at the time of the caution, there would be a very high probability of conviction.

2. the Police may have their own set of instructions which gives different guidance. If these instructions are available on line, they would make interesting reading.

3. it seems remarkable that it would be in the public interest that 6 out of 8 women should be cautioned for effectively being maids, when there is no suggestion of trafficking etc here. Even more surprising/disappointing is that fact that something has been done "in the public interest" but there is no statement to the public of why it is in their interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the CPS guidance indicates that "maids" should be charged if their assistance is crucial to the operation of the brothel or they have been involved for a long period of time, especially where the premises have underage, coerced or trafficked women. It also suggests that if the assistance is minor or over a short period of time, a prosecution may not be in the public interest. In the Leeds case, 6 of the 8 women were cautioned, in all probability, for this offence but there is no indication of trafficking etc.

This may suggest either:

1. that the evidence required by the Police for them to offer a caution may not need to be of the same quality/quantity as that which they require to proceed with a prosecution. If this is correct, it appears to be a major anomaly to me, as I understood that they have to be satisfied that, with the information available to them at the time of the caution, there would be a very high probability of conviction.

2. the Police may have their own set of instructions which gives different guidance. If these instructions are available on line, they would make interesting reading.

3. it seems remarkable that it would be in the public interest that 6 out of 8 women should be cautioned for effectively being maids, when there is no suggestion of trafficking etc here. Even more surprising/disappointing is that fact that something has been done "in the public interest" but there is no statement to the public of why it is in their interest.

I think that the CPS/police would probably say that the public interest was served by not actually prosecuting the women. They admitted the offences in a PACE compliant taped interview, they were offered cautions, they accepted them and signed the necessary forms acknowleding the implications. The girls were allowed home and they didn't have to go to court or have their name in the papers. The police were happy as they have six detections. The CPS don't have the hassle of prosecuting them - which unbeknownst to the women they were most probably never going to do anyway.

Home Office circular 016/2008 contains guidance in relation to simple cautions:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2008/016-2008/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are you any the wiser? No disrespect to the respondents, just that the law is an ass (arse?)!

Yes, I am wiser in the fact that although, of course I realised that renting a property for the sole purpose of entertaining clients was almost certainly illegal and a flat where two girls entertaining at the same time could be viewed as a brothel, I wasn't sure whether or not two girls sharing a flat and entertaining at different times could also be considered in the eyes of the law as a brothel. Well, now I know that it could!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am wiser in the fact that although, of course I realised that renting a property for the sole purpose of entertaining clients was almost certainly illegal

Not illegal, but in 90% of cases will be in breach of your tenancy agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the CPS/police would probably say that the public interest was served by not actually prosecuting the women. They admitted the offences in a PACE compliant taped interview, they were offered cautions, they accepted them and signed the necessary forms acknowleding the implications. The girls were allowed home and they didn't have to go to court or have their name in the papers. The police were happy as they have six detections. The CPS don't have the hassle of prosecuting them - which unbeknownst to the women they were most probably never going to do anyway.

Home Office circular 016/2008 contains guidance in relation to simple cautions:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2008/016-2008/

A bit of an aside.

But this old sceptic is very sure that, when invoked, "public interest" is more often than not a euphemism for the interest of whatever section of the establishment that is involved,

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