Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Silverado

Meaning of " Control" - Court of Appeal decision

3 posts in this topic

There was some discussion a week or so back regarding the meaning of "Control" in the context of the proposed legislation.

Fiona Mctaggart made the following comment during the second reading.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why there have been no convictions in Finland is that there have been no prosecutions, except in the past two months? He suggests that "controlled for gain" is difficult to define, but it is clearly defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has worked well. The definition was decided on by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Massey.

I have found reference to the Massey case [reported in 2007] in Times Online:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article2994429.ece

I have obtained a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision and can post extracts if anyone is interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a copy of the following link

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/2664.html

to Chris Huhne to let him know that Fiona MacTaggart was talking crap.

Several points to note are that the judge says the absence of free will is not necessary for control to be proven. He also says that recruiting women from abroad to work in a brothel in the UK would suffice. Note his use of the word "recruit" not "traffick" or "enslave" or "trick". He also says that control could be as simple as directing what price to charge. Since every brothel I've ever been in has a set menu of prices it shows that all of them are guilty of control as defined in this judgment. Which is what Chris Huihne was saying, that this law is applicable to any brothel, irrespective of trafficking or coercion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was some discussion a week or so back regarding the meaning of "Control" in the context of the proposed legislation.

Fiona Mctaggart made the following comment during the second reading.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why there have been no convictions in Finland is that there have been no prosecutions, except in the past two months? He suggests that “controlled for gain” is difficult to define, but it is clearly defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has worked well. The definition was decided on by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Massey.

I have found reference to the Massey case [reported in 2007] in Times Online:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article2994429.ece

I have obtained a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision and can post extracts if anyone is interested.

has been posted several times already, here for example

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=175654#poststop

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