Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncle Pokey

New Law - Starter for Ten

14 posts in this topic

Suppose a punter goes to see one of his favourite regulars who by any stretch of the imagination is absolutely independent - there is no question of anyone else involved.

Or is there?

The lady concerned has recently been subjected to a tax investigation and as a result of this has been estimated to owe HMRC around £5k plus interest and penalties. She is invited to make a voluntary settlement against the threat of more formal proceedings.

Our punter visits (and pays) during the period between the lady being invited by HMRC to settle with that body and her actually doing so.

Is our punter guilty of the new offence?

Discuss.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose a punter goes to see one of his favourite regulars who by any stretch of the imagination is absolutely independent - there is no question of anyone else involved.

Or is there?

The lady concerned has recently been subjected to a tax investigation and as a result of this has been estimated to owe HMRC around £5k plus interest and penalties. She is invited to make a voluntary settlement against the threat of more formal proceedings.

Our punter visits (and pays) during the period between the lady being invited by HMRC to settle with that body and her actually doing so.

Is our punter guilty of the new offence?

Discuss.

Uncle Pokey

As I understand it what you are asking in the above example is whether or not HMRC can be identified as "C" in the following extract from the new legislation :-

(a) A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (:),

(:D a third person © has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and

© C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or :o.

.

.

.

.

.

(3) C engages in exploitative conduct if

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case C is taking lawful steps towards obtaining money owed from her previous earnings. So she isn't being forced to 'work'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put shortly Yes.

I'm not getting into any nonsense re 'Govt pimping etc, etc' It is about whethere the 'threat' mentioned would induce a magistrate to read the lady was coerced to accept the appointment

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that we have already considered this scenario last year.

The answer is..... not a chance.

Not least because HMRC is not a "person".

So far as I am aware there is no defintion of "person" in the SOA 2003. I can't say that for sure because I haven't checked completely.

A commercial contract would define a "Person" as including any individual, firm, body corporate, association or partnership, government, government body or state (whether or not having a separate legal entity) -or words along those lines. So it would include HMRC.

Nothing similar in the Interpretation Act 1978....... so punter not guilty.

In any event I can't see the Magistrates convicting. Far too remote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put shortly Yes.

I'm not getting into any nonsense re 'Govt pimping etc, etc' It is about whethere the 'threat' mentioned would induce a magistrate to read the lady was coerced to accept the appointment

Uncle Pokey

I think that the Magistrate(s) would make the distinction between, for example, "If you don't get out there and fuck that punter, I'll kick your fucking head in" and the standard legal procedure taken by HMRC for the recovery of a legal debt. As I understand it HMRC do not specify how the money involved in the debt is to be obtained, but merely observe the usual steps involved in the recovery of the debt, the invitation to make a voluntary settlement is normal and the statement regarding more formal proceedings is just that, a statement that any person/body could use in the recovery of a legal debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well think about it we could all then claim the gas, electricity, credit card companies are pimping us all out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys. Some thoughtful and helpful comments there.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Guys. Some thoughtful and helpful comments there.

Uncle Pokey

at the end of the day it's not even remotely possible. The bill says the person has to specifically push you into prostitution in the expectation of gain for themselves. Fairly straightforward, and wouldn't cover regular bills that everyone gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at the end of the day it's not even remotely possible. The bill says the person has to specifically push you into prostitution in the expectation of gain for themselves. Fairly straightforward, and wouldn't cover regular bills that everyone gets.

C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or :).

Its down to

induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services

uses force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, practises any form of deception.

So I can threaten you, (court hearing, balliffs) to pay the bill. Would this iduce or encourage you to sell sex to another, which would be used to pay me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I deliberately introduced the possibility of some perhaps more subtle legal argument here in an attempt to probe the limits of this realy rather draconian legislation.

On the facts postulated I think Sas and Sil have pretty much reassured me. But It frankly does worry me a bit.

I actually take more comfort in what a senior (very) policeman said to me a while back that (words to the effect) that they had much better things to do than deal with this 'load of shite' but that true cases of people being forced to do things against their will, however put, would occupy their full attention and that he hoped that patrons of Punternet would report such cases.

Uncle Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can threaten you, (court hearing, balliffs) to pay the bill. Would this iduce or encourage you to sell sex to another, which would be used to pay me.

yes quite possibly, but you haven't specified how I earn the money so you haven't engaged in exploitative conduct

Since you're being pedantic about what it says, strict liability is only applied to the punter, not to C. Therefore C has to have knowledge of what they're forcing the girl into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is still your free choice how you choose to earn that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes quite possibly, but you haven't specified how I earn the money so you haven't engaged in exploitative conduct

Since you're being pedantic about what it says, strict liability is only applied to the punter, not to C. Therefore C has to have knowledge of what they're forcing the girl into.

Very true. Thank you.

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