Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Camden Brothel sentence did not include control for gain

2 posts in this topic

Interesting on from the Camden Gazette. (19th August) Can't find a link to the artcle, though if you sign up to the Camden Gazette you may get to read it. http://www.camdengazette.co.uk

Judge Christopher Hardy, passing sentence said: 'I accept you wern't the organisers - you came in for a period pf some weeks to help run the brothel. I also accept the girls working there weren't working under compulsion, if that had been the case you would each be about to receive a long prison sentences."

Lew of Highgate Street Liverpool who admitted keeping a brothel was actually released on Friday because she had already serverd 64 days on remand. Xu of no fixed abode, who also admitted keeping a brothel was jailed for 10 months.

They each denied controlling prostitution for gain and the charge was allowed to lie on file.

The point being they where not convicted of controlling for gain. Seemingly most who are convicted do so because they plead guilty. Were the CPS worried about another precedent like Silk and Lace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting on from the Camden Gazette. (19th August) Can't find a link to the artcle, though if you sign up to the Camden Gazette you may get to read it. http://www.camdengazette.co.uk

Judge Christopher Hardy, passing sentence said: 'I accept you wern't the organisers - you came in for a period pf some weeks to help run the brothel. I also accept the girls working there weren't working under compulsion, if that had been the case you would each be about to receive a long prison sentences."

Lew of Highgate Street Liverpool who admitted keeping a brothel was actually released on Friday because she had already serverd 64 days on remand. Xu of no fixed abode, who also admitted keeping a brothel was jailed for 10 months.

They each denied controlling prostitution for gain and the charge was allowed to lie on file.

The point being they where not convicted of controlling for gain. Seemingly most who are convicted do so because they plead guilty. Were the CPS worried about another precedent like Silk and Lace?

I think it had more to do with the first sentence in your quote i.e that they weren't the organisers and were roped in just before the place was raided. Theoretically control for gain would cover that but a conviction for that wouldn't add anything sentencing wise since they already had them on keeping a brothel, so the CPS obviously seem to have decided "why bother?"

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0