SashaB

Remanded In Custody?

22 posts in this topic

Brothel receptionist avoids jail

(Sister given bail) admitted assisting in the management of a brothel and was given a 20 week jail term suspended for a year.

She was further ordered to carry out 100 hours unpaid work by Judge (name deleted) who told her it was quite clear she had been used by others adding:"It would be wrong to send you to prison."

That was today, 19-07-2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is no mention of the other sister that was remanded in custody. Cant find anything on the web about her at all which again seems odd. She was apparently due back in court on March 25th but no further information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found this while browsing http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/blackcountry/5003194.Sisters_charged_with_managing_Dudley_brothel/

2 sisters charged with managing a brothel in Dudley, one of the sisters has been remanded in custody? As you would expect the article is pretty vague but it seems just a touch extreme unless someone knows something Im obviously missing?

There could be many reasons why she was refused Police bail ( see sections 37 and 38 PACE 1984). I suspect she probably has prior form for not answering to bail - hence a refusal this time.

I also suspect that the other sister may have pleaded not guilty whereas Ms. barton pleaded guilty.

A 20 week prison term suspended for a year does seem fairly harsh for being a receptionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 20 week prison term suspended for a year does seem fairly harsh for being a receptionist.

Reading many other articles from the area of Bury, I wonder if local authorities are particuarly strict up that way. I found a number of articles about brothel raids and prosecutions none of which sounded like any of the "rules" had been broken but most with extreme outcomes.

The case of the guy jailed for a further 7 years for failing to pay a 2 million procedes of crime bill was from the same area. I cant honestly imagine why anyone would not pay a procedes of crime bill and risk a further sentance unless you were physically unable, which again leads me to wonder if the sum was a gross over estimation in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jailed guy was from a different local authority. They are making an example of him because he was involved in the cuddles saga.

West Mids Police is on a Major crackdown, there was an article in the paper the other night about the scene we dont talk about and unlike HH's view they are targeting the girls. I quote "But if we can crack the problems of sex workers, then we can reduce crime as a whole."

We all know of one famous place that has closed round the corner from Cuddles lets see if any more suddenly disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case of the guy jailed for a further 7 years for failing to pay a 2 million procedes of crime bill was from the same area. I cant honestly imagine why anyone would not pay a procedes of crime bill and risk a further sentance unless you were physically unable, which again leads me to wonder if the sum was a gross over estimation in the first place

Oh I don't know, a 7 year sentence (out in 4 ish), probably mostly spent in an open prison, in return for keeping £2 million is a fair exchange to me. I wouldn't pay it. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There could be many reasons why she was refused Police bail ( see sections 37 and 38 PACE 1984). I suspect she probably has prior form for not answering to bail - hence a refusal this time.

I also suspect that the other sister may have pleaded not guilty whereas Ms. barton pleaded guilty.

A 20 week prison term suspended for a year does seem fairly harsh for being a receptionist.

What he said. The police would have had to make an application before the magistrates to remand her in custody giving one or more of the following reasons -

There are justifiable grounds for believing that the defendant will not comply with bail conditions;

Or the defendant has demonstrated that he or she cannot or will not comply with them;

Or there are justifiable grounds for believing that the defendant will commit one or more of the future risks regardless of the conditions imposed.

She may have had a warrant in her name for a previous offence.

They may fear that witnesses will be approached (if her staff have given police statements).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I don't know, a 7 year sentence (out in 4 ish), probably mostly spent in an open prison, in return for keeping £2 million is a fair exchange to me. I wouldn't pay it. :confused:

It was my impression that sentences were only halved when the origional sentence was 4 years or less, so seven years I think is seven years. I stand to be corrected but still your no good to man nor beast in prison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I don't know, a 7 year sentence (out in 4 ish), probably mostly spent in an open prison, in return for keeping £2 million is a fair exchange to me. I wouldn't pay it. :confused:

As I understand it, (code for "correct me if I'm out of date or otherwise wrong") if you are given a fine, with a period of imprisonment in default of payment, doing the bird writes off the fine, so you get three squarish meals and the odd shower, and then are let out, but a POCA forfeiture order, with a sentence for not paying is different. The BBC's web-site recently quoted a Judge in Wales (wherever that is) pointing out to the vilain that he'd still owe the money even if he served the extra time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......a POCA forfeiture order, with a sentence for not paying is different. The BBC's web-site recently quoted a Judge in Wales (wherever that is) pointing out to the vilain that he'd still owe the money even if he served the extra time.

That would be this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10556454

"A man who lured girls as young as 14 into prostitution has been ordered to pay more than £135,000 from his assets or face another three years in jail.

Judge David Morris at Newport Crown Court told Baker he would have to serve another three years if he did not meet the Proceeds of Crime order and would still have to find the cash after his release."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there is no mention of the other sister that was remanded in custody. Cant find anything on the web about her at all which again seems odd. She was apparently due back in court on March 25th but no further information

I did get a link on Bing with her name appearing in Crown Court on 07/07/10 but couldn't find anymore details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10556454

"A man who lured girls as young as 14 into prostitution has been ordered to pay more than £135,000 from his assets or face another three years in jail.

Judge David Morris at Newport Crown Court told Baker he would have to serve another three years if he did not meet the Proceeds of Crime order and would still have to find the cash after his release."

He seems to be someone you wouldn't like to socialise with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found this while browsing http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/blackcountry/5003194.Sisters_charged_with_managing_Dudley_brothel/

2 sisters charged with managing a brothel in Dudley, one of the sisters has been remanded in custody? As you would expect the article is pretty vague but it seems just a touch extreme unless someone knows something Im obviously missing?

I was walking up that street(I wasn`t going there though...honest,although I have in the past) when the coppers turned up.:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was my impression that sentences were only halved when the origional sentence was 4 years or less, so seven years I think is seven years. I stand to be corrected but still your no good to man nor beast in prison

No I think for sentences of over 4 years you do either 66% or 75% before being released on licence. Also you can't get out earlier on the tag.

As I understand it, (code for "correct me if I'm out of date or otherwise wrong") if you are given a fine, with a period of imprisonment in default of payment, doing the bird writes off the fine, so you get three squarish meals and the odd shower, and then are let out, but a POCA forfeiture order, with a sentence for not paying is different. The BBC's web-site recently quoted a Judge in Wales (wherever that is) pointing out to the vilain that he'd still owe the money even if he served the extra time.

Maybe but if you are not earning (because you are living off a huge mump sum) then they can't garnish your earnings. Besides with that amount you can just and bugger off and live in whatever country's bank accounts you have the money snaffled away in can't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of the guy jailed for a further 7 years for failing to pay a 2 million procedes of crime bill was from the same area. I cant honestly imagine why anyone would not pay a procedes of crime bill and risk a further sentance unless you were physically unable, which again leads me to wonder if the sum was a gross over estimation in the first place

Do you mean him?http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/07/15/bearwood-brothel-owner-jailed-again/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I think for sentences of over 4 years you do either 66% or 75% before being released on licence. Also you can't get out earlier on the tag.

For all prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more (excluding dangerous offenders and life sentence prisoners) the Secretary of State is required to release them on licence at the halfway point of their sentence - (section 244 Criminal Justice Act 2003 ).

For a prison sentence of less than 12 months, the court must specify a period ("the custodial period") at the end of which the offender is to be released on licence. The custodial period must be at least 2 weeks and not be more than 13 weeks - (section 181 CJA2003).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case of the guy jailed for a further 7 years for failing to pay a 2 million procedes of crime bill was from the same area. I cant honestly imagine why anyone would not pay a procedes of crime bill and risk a further sentance unless you were physically unable, which again leads me to wonder if the sum was a gross over estimation in the first place

Or you could do what Diana Jones did - bugger off to Cyprus and say that you're not coming back.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Brothel-Madam-Diane-Jones-Refuses-To-Pay-Back-Money-Made-From-Brothels/Article/200907415344758?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15344758_Brothel_Madam%3A_Diane_Jones_Refuses_To_Pay_Back_Money_Made_From_Brothels_

She received a 12 month suspended sentence and a POCA order of £2.6m.

"Following her conviction she was investigated by the Regional Asset Recovery Team (Wales) and was ordered to pay back £2.6m of her earnings within six months at a hearing she failed to attend.

She is liable for a four-year prison sentence if she fails to pay within six months, and will still have to pay the money.

The former madam says she is not likely to pay.

She said: "I don't want to do four years in prison and I haven't got £2.6m, so I've got to sit tight.

"I could have got a lot worse. I was expecting maybe six years and the amount to repay could have been as bad as £4m. I'm 47 in December. I would be stupid to come back."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She said: "I don't want to do four years in prison and I haven't got £2.6m, so I've got to sit tight.

This is what frightens me, I thought they were only meant to be able to take available assets, so what if you dont physically have the money to pay? You cant just grow the stuff on trees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what frightens me, I thought they were only meant to be able to take available assets.....

True. The "available amount" is the value of all the defendant's property, minus certain prior obligations of the defendant's such as earlier fines and secured borrowings, plus the value of all tainted gifts made by the defendant - (section 9 POCA 2002).

If the available amount is nil then the order will be for a nominal sum - usually £1.

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