Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RM Man

What

6 posts in this topic

Having read and read again the Hansard reports of the committee stage, with the likes of Baroness Hanham withdrawing several amendments until the report stage to give the Government time to think again (if only for political expediency) I was confident a lot of the nonsense in clauses 13 to 20 would be altered or withdrawn at the report stage, especially with all the positive press recently about the distorted trafficking figures.

However reading the thread from Catherine from the IUSW now makes me think this could go through without further amendment.

I see it's now scheduled for 3/11/09 (next Tuesday)

Sorry if this has been covered before but there is so much information out there on so many threads and on the parliament website that unless you're a Lawyer or constitutional expert it gets confusing!

So what does anybody else think, will it be amended? Partly amended? Or go through in the present form? Or is there no way of knowing and we have to wait and see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be very surprised if the 'strict liability' gets passed. If it does, it's a sad day for British justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be very surprised if the 'strict liability' gets passed. If it does, it's a sad day for British justice.

Even if it does the first time they try to use it they'll probably lose. Juries and Judges really don't like convicting people who don't know they're breaking the law. There was huge debate in the Lords Committee stage regarding strict liabilty and Lord Pannick used the example of a man who appealed against his conviction for having sex with girl under 13 saying that strict liabilty breached his human rights. The Law Lords only threw out his appeal as the protection of children under 13 was such a hugely important issue and overided his human rights issues. They were talking about a rape charge. But this law is a very minor offence with a maximum of a £1000 fine, hardly an issue that overides a man's human rights. Also a girl's age is provable in fact. She was either under 13 or over 13. You can check birth certificates and be sure of it. But whether or not a woman is being forced by a third party into sex is open to debate and there will undoubtably be arguments over that, and the client would have no way of telling one way or the other at the time of the offence.

Win or lose the debate in the Lords the offence will, as a result of case law, be rendered useless. Although some poor bugger will probably have to be dragged through the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it will help if we all write to the lords,otherwise we only have ourselves to blame for allowing a small minority of abolitionists to pass laws that persecutes sex workers.

http://www.prostitutescollective.net/PolicingandCrimeModelLetter.htm

I have written to the Lords, but am in two minds as to how much impact it will have. :rolleyes:

There are too many people all too eager to jump on the anti-bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have written to the Lords, but am in two minds as to how much impact it will have. :rolleyes:

There are too many people all too eager to jump on the anti-bandwagon.

the house of lords is a bit more independent than the commons and as the great big sex trafficking con has been exposed,it may just be enough to sway some lords for whom sex trafficking was the main reason for the legislation

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