Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
elrond

Offences Of Soliciting And Paying For The Sexual Services Of A Prostitute Subject To Force Have Been Added To The Police National Recordable Offence L

15 posts in this topic

From 30th July 2012, the offences of soliciting and paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subject to force have been added to the police national recordable offence list.

This will enable police to take DNA samples from those arrested for the above offences, thereby giving the police greater ability to share data on those offenders who have committed these offences. ACPO have expressed their support for making these offences recordable and consider that it will provide them with important intelligence and enable them to share information across police regions, identify and share offending patterns and by virtue of this tackle those offenders who cross police borders to offend in an attempt to avoid detection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 30th July 2012, the offences of soliciting and paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subject to force have been added to the police national recordable offence list.

This will enable police to take DNA samples from those arrested for the above offences, thereby giving the police greater ability to share data on those offenders who have committed these offences. ACPO have expressed their support for making these offences recordable and consider that it will provide them with important intelligence and enable them to share information across police regions, identify and share offending patterns and by virtue of this tackle those offenders who cross police borders to offend in an attempt to avoid detection

Interesting information, thanks Elrond. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always surprised me that Hattie missed a trick there by not putting the relevant statutory instrument in place on or before 1 April 2010, and in any event prior to Labour losing the general election.

I'm also surprised that it's taken over 2 years for it to happen.

Still waiting though for someone to find an actual case reported in the media of anybody being convicted of the new section 53A offence. Anyone found one yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting though for someone to find an actual case reported in the media of anybody being convicted of the new section 53A offence. Anyone found one yet?

The magic words to me are, "...arrested for..." - all they have to do, and I fear will do, with a view to putting the frighteners on punters, when they raid a parlour, is to arrest "for s53A", go through the dabs - DNA - photo routine, and then release on police bail, while they decide that they have no evidence of coercion, and then release the bail, by post, with "PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL" "POLICE" writ big enough on the envelope that even a partially sighted wife or mother will need to know what punter has been getting up to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then release the bail, by post, with "PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL" "POLICE" writ big enough on the envelope that even a partially sighted wife or mother will need to know what punter has been getting up to!

You police tactics well then, subtle is not in their dictionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magic words to me are, "...arrested for..." - all they have to do, and I fear will do, with a view to putting the frighteners on punters, when they raid a parlour, is to arrest "for s53A", go through the dabs - DNA - photo routine, and then release on police bail, while they decide that they have no evidence of coercion, and then release the bail, by post, with "PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL" "POLICE" writ big enough on the envelope that even a partially sighted wife or mother will need to know what punter has been getting up to!

I just can't see it happening myself. Personally I think that I've a greater chance of being involved in a serious car accident on the way to a punt or of being hit by a bolt of lightning whilst walking from my car to the punt.

The introduction of the new offence in 2010 may have put the frighteners on some punters initially but there appears to have been no lasting effect. I doubt very much that this statutory instrument will have any effect at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that if you have not been charged/ found guilty of the offence but you have been arrested for it, the police have discretion to disclose that information on a CRB check?

What about if you have been arrested for it but are in a proffession where the police have to disclose information (i.e. solicitor, nurse etc), will the police have to disclose the arrest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that if you have not been charged/ found guilty of the offence but you have been arrested for it, the police have discretion to disclose that information on a CRB check?

Potentially yes on an Enhanced CRB check. But that decision is made at a high level within the police. The police can disclose information even if the subject hasn't been arrested. So the fact that section 53A is now a recordable offence makes no real difference in practice.

What about if you have been arrested for it but are in a proffession where the police have to disclose information (i.e. solicitor, nurse etc), will the police have to disclose the arrest?

If you're in a Notifiable Occupation, only a conviction,caution, reprimand or final warning is notifiable. An arrest is not notifiable. The fact that section 53A is now a recordable offence means that it's more likely to be notified in some circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially yes on an Enhanced CRB check. But that decision is made at a high level within the police. The police can disclose information even if the subject hasn't been arrested. So the fact that section 53A is now a recordable offence makes no real difference in practice.

If you're in a Notifiable Occupation, only a conviction,caution, reprimand or final warning is notifiable. An arrest is not notifiable. The fact that section 53A is now a recordable offence means that it's more likely to be notified in some circumstances.

From what I hear they disclose anything they deem relevant, general information they may have on you if they think it should be made know. Wasn't this the problem with the Huntley case?There'd been suspicion or rumour he'd possibly behaved inappropriately with child previously, but no arrest/charge/conviction and so this wasn't revealed to his current employer although it was on record somewhere. Used in the correct way could be useful but it's only as good as police 'information' which isn't proven.

Edited by Strawberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used in the correct way could be useful but it's only as good as police 'information' which isn't proven.

Police information is only as good as the police officer trying to use it. In my mind an even more frightening phrase is "police intelligence". Generally of a very low level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police information is only as good as the police officer trying to use it. In my mind an even more frightening phrase is "police intelligence". Generally of a very low level.

Yes but I have come across instances where it's been very good too, slow but very good. I think it depends on their motivations, and priorities at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I hear they disclose anything they deem relevant, general information they may have on you if they think it should be made know.

For an Enhanced CRB the police will additionally disclose "any information which in the chief officer's opinion might be relevant ....and ought to be included in the certificate." (section 113B Police Act 1997).

That's quite wide but there's a fair amount of recent case-law where people have challenged the additional information disclosed by the police. Most of it seems to involve teachers accused of child sex offences, including the possession of indecent images. The cases do show the thought processes of the police in making the decisions.

Disclosure must be reasonable, proportionate and in accordance with the law.

Section 53A is a low level offence, summary only. The maximum penalty is Level 3 (currently £1,000). There's no notification requirement on the Violent and Sex Offenders Register (ViSOR).

A conviction or caution is automatically revealed on a CRB certificate. I can't think of too many cases where it's reasonable to disclose other non-conviction/caution information relating to s.53A on an Enhanced CRB.

I said in a previous post that an arrest is not notifiable. There are some cases where an arrest may be immediately notified to employers. Those generally relate to people working with children or vulnerable adults and the person is suspected of a sexual offence or one of serious violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 30th July 2012, the offences of soliciting and paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subject to force have been added to the police national recordable offence list.

This will enable police to take DNA samples from those arrested for the above offences....

It's probably worth pointing out that the relevant provisions of Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provide for the early destruction of DNA samples/profiles and fingerprints for those not convicted or cautioned.

I don't think that the relevant provisions are in force yet because a Commencement Order hasn't been made.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that ACPO guidelines that allowed DNA samples taken during criminal investigations to be retained indefinitely were unlawful because they violated individuals' rights to privacy as guaranteed by human rights laws including the HRA.

The Act provides for a destruction period ranging from immediate destruction up to a maximum of 5 years retention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I hear they disclose anything they deem relevant, general information they may have on you if they think it should be made know.

Sounds to me like a case of 'shit sticks...' whether or not there's a requirement to inform employers. A word in the ear of a friendly local hack, a NIB (news in brief) in the local paper, and it's game over. We've all seen cases of motorists convicted of kerb crawling, I dont see this as any different as some forces will be keen to get the message across.

And do we really trust the police to destory DNA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't this the problem with the Huntley case?There'd been suspicion or rumour he'd possibly behaved inappropriately with child previously

Not exactly. The chairman of the Humberside Police Authority ordered the deletion of the database of intelligence on sex offenders.

The same chairman has faced allegations of sexual abuse of children on three seperate occasions.

Coincidence ? I don't think so, it is a scandal.

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