View Full Version : First Trafficking Prosecution Northern Ireland
Interesting that the judge accepted there was no coercion involved but the mere acts of arranging transport and accomodation means it falls within the definition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17817083
There was no allegation that the women were brought or held against their will.
"Following an investigation they were rescued on 21 March
please reconcile
Curvaceous Kate
23-04-12, 18:00
I don't really understand why they needed a third party to book the air tickets for them. I'm so glad I do my own booking, at least that way no one can make accusations like this. It's a horrible situation.
First sentence for trafficking and it has nothing to do with any actual enslaving, exploiting, selling people or coercion. I think that speaks volumes about the reality of how many escorts are actually forced and truely trafficked.
It doesnt even say, that they shared their income with him, they only paid for rent and flights, so he was maybe just a travel agent. Hardly any sexual exploitation.
Well, travel agents and hotels are knee high in deep shit now I reckon.
I don't really understand why they needed a third party to book the air tickets for them. I'm so glad I do my own booking, at least that way no one can make accusations like this. It's a horrible situation.
Yes, thats a funny one. But for some reason on my first tour my agent/pimp booked the flight and acomodation for us too. I probably wouldnt know how to do that back then. Or maybe it comes like a 'package' - the service the agency/pimp provides in return for your 50%.
There was no allegation that the women were brought or held against their will.
"Following an investigation they were rescued on 21 March
please reconcile
My thoughts exactly Kingbee when I read the article. Not brought or held against their will but in need of rescuing???:confused:
From the article this appears to have been a third party facilitation (agency sort of arrangement) for escorting. That appears to be the man's crime.
I think the line has been drawn in the sand in Northern Ireland with regards to anti-escorting policies.
I wonder what happened to the rescued ladies???? Put on the first plane back to where they came from and banned from entering Britain, I wouldn't be suprised! Not one iota of help there thank you!!:mad:
this case together with another recent one (in which 2 girls were jailed for 'controlling' prostitution) essentially means that :
1.Girls cant share accomodation-either one can be accused of 'controlling' the other in any case its a 'brothel'
2.Voluntary Agency arrangements are tantamount to trafficking
3.Any landlord wittingly or unwittingly renting out to an escort is 'trafficking'
Curvaceous Kate
23-04-12, 18:57
this case together with another recent one (in which 2 girls were jailed for 'controlling' prostitution) essentially means that :
1.Girls cant share accomodation-either one can be accused of 'controlling' the other in any case its a 'brothel'
2.Voluntary Agency arrangements are tantamount to trafficking
3.Any landlord wittingly or unwittingly renting out to an escort is 'trafficking'
It's kind of an exploitation of the word 'vunerable', as they are doing this saying that they are protecting the 'vunerable' when in actual fact they are creating a situation which makes women 'vunerable'.
The one thing that politicians are very good at is malipulation and boy are they doing their job well here!
Interesting, I believe there's only been about two in Ireland. I'm still waiting for the answer to the question asked by Labour TD Tommy Broughan about how many arrests have been made by Operation Quest, the Garda anti-trafficking operation. It's clear that either the existing legislation is ineffective or the problem isn't quite as big as some people like to make out.
In Ireland, under s.5 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 trafficking in adults (persons aged 18 years or over) for the purposes of sexual or labour exploitation or the removal of their organs is criminalised. For trafficking to occur under this section, coercion, deception or threats etc. must have been used against the trafficked person or threats, coercion or force must have been used against any person who has the charge or care of, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being.
It's also interesting to note that under the same section, trafficking can also occur where the trafficker has made any payment or conferred any benefit etc. on any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in exchange for the person permitting the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person. Further, it criminalises the sale of any person over 18, or those who may be mentally impaired.
The act of trafficking is defined in s.2 of the 2008 Act, but it is only an offence when the actus reus listed under s.5 of the Act are present.
scary thing is that given this all encompassing most general definition of trafficking any punters who have had sex with said girls are liable to prosecution too:eek:
Interesting, I believe there's only been about two in Ireland. I'm still waiting for the answer to the question asked by Labour TD Tommy Broughan about how many arrests have been made by Operation Quest, the Garda anti-trafficking operation. It's clear that either the existing legislation is ineffective or the problem isn't quite as big as some people like to make out.
In Ireland, under s.5 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 trafficking in adults (persons aged 18 years or over) for the purposes of sexual or labour exploitation or the removal of their organs is criminalised. For trafficking to occur under this section, coercion, deception or threats etc. must have been used against the trafficked person or threats, coercion or force must have been used against any person who has the charge or care of, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being.
It's also interesting to note that under the same section, trafficking can also occur where the trafficker has made any payment or conferred any benefit etc. on any person in whose care or charge, or under whose control, the trafficked person was for the time being, in exchange for the person permitting the trafficker to traffick the trafficked person. Further, it criminalises the sale of any person over 18, or those who may be mentally impaired.
The act of trafficking is defined in s.2 of the 2008 Act, but it is only an offence when the actus reus listed under s.5 of the Act are present.
FFS you lawyers!!!;) I can never understand a word of the law!! I reckon it is written like that on purpose to confuse the lay person and ensure employment for lawyers!!!:p Anyway, you can carve out a niche for yourself here Banjaxed. I'll be your first client if the legislation changes for the worse.:o
But thanks for the excerpt Banjaxed. However, my understanding is that the judge always has leeway to intepret the law? Hence the case in Northern Ireland quoted above, where the individual seemed to act as an agent. I would have thought that they would have charged him with profiting from, or facillitating prostitution, but instead they went for a trafficking charge? Which I thought was the harder conviction to obtain?
The only thing that makes me suspicious about the above account is that the Hungarian police were involved and apparently tipped the local coppers off. I wonder if that suggests that the ladies were part of a larger escorting syndicate that the Hungarian police were watching?
scary thing is that given this all encompassing most general definition of trafficking any punters who have had sex with said girls are liable to prosecution too:eek:
Previous post above contains typographical, it should be s.4 in the second paragraph.
Well that's already the case down here in the South, for the record. Section 5 of the 2008 Act criminalises any person who knowingly solicits a trafficked person. The defence requires it be shown that the accused had no "reasonable grounds" for believing, that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed was a trafficked person.
Previous post above contains typographical, it should be s.4 in the second paragraph.
Well that's already the case down here in the South, for the record. Section 5 of the 2008 Act criminalises any person who knowingly solicits a trafficked person. The defence requires it be shown that the accused had no "reasonable grounds" for believing, that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed was a trafficked person.
thats good that there is a defence!!! whatever reasonable grounds may be- I would hope that the word 'independent' on the ad would be enough
whether a clever barrister would engage along the following lines
sir: did you visit said escort
yes
did you have sex- yes
did you pay her for sex- no I paid her for her time , the sex was incidental
were you aware she was trafficked?
im not sure what the precise legal definition of that term is
barrister then goes on to explain
in that case- I had no idea , it said independent escort on the website
did you believe this
yes but youre admitting you know that distinction already
yes
its hardly going to say trafficked on the website
so what precautions to you take to ensure youre not with a trafficked girl
im not sure what you mean
well- how many girls were in the apartment, does she speak english, did SHE answer the phone,does she work 24 hours, why does she tour etc etc
So you can see how that might develop
LaBelleThatcher
24-04-12, 10:06
It seems to me that they are gone mad enough to resort to charging and imprisoning people for being less harm, or risk, to society than someone who drives over the speed limit.
...and all of this in a recession so deep that other people are already having to resort to food banks to survive!
To me it is all just bizzarre and very, very wrong.
As I've said before, 'trafficking' is a word that has become almost cliche with the connotations of the terms 'coercion' and 'victim'. It is of course illegal and, of course, something that should not be condoned or tolerated, but in many of these cases, escorts actually arrange to be trafficked so that they can leave their countries to work in the sex industry and pay to do so.
People tend to thread the terms of 'trafficking', 'coercion', 'pimped' and 'agency' together in one little bundle, but there is a world of difference between these terms, even if they often go hand-in-hand. It's completely understandable because people are permanently being drip-fed this the rhetoric articles of the tabloids, because naturally, they want to flog a few newspapers and stand by their 'moral ethics' in the perception of their Joe Public.
The Law is of course often ambiguous enough to be left to interpretation, that's probably another reason why these terms may be perceived to be worse than they actually are; it's a 'one-size to fit all' term in a lot of cases. As mentioned above, if someone books the flights for an escort and some money is thrown their way for the time and effort, they are, in essence, an agent (or even regarded as a pimp, depending on how far this wants to be spread). I would assume that under that label, they would be subjected to the same terms of imprisonment if they were charged and tried as guilty?
Even if the Swedish model was introduced, it is obvious that this will be more of a skim-over to the 'problem', not the remedy; escorts will still work and clients will be charged, but this will push things underground. It baffles me as to why the Irish Government don't just legalise it and enforce systems in place to control it and benefit from it? Surely this would mean less people in prison and safer work for sex workers, as well as ensure that sex workers could pay taxes without fear of prejudice? The issue seems to be 'down with that sort of thing!' in a country still held by it's religious principals.
Interesting that the judge accepted there was no coercion involved but the mere acts of arranging transport and accomodation means it falls within the definition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17817083
Many thanks kingbee.
That looks like an extraordinary judgement !! :eek:
I thought that if the swedish model was brought in here, there still might be an escape route for clients to go North but these interpretations dont augur well for that scenario.:o
I wonder have any statistics been published as to whether or not the amount of bookings decreased ( or not ) in Sweden since they introduced their new laws ?
LaBelleThatcher
24-04-12, 14:29
It seems that the Swedes may not haved bothered with any actual research or statistics at all:
http://www.lauraagustin.com/evidence-that-the-swedish-law-doesnt-work-unimportant-says-evaluator-skarhed
Pathological control run wild.
As I've said before, 'trafficking' is a word that has become almost cliche with the connotations of the terms 'coercion' and 'victim'. It is of course illegal and, of course, something that should not be condoned or tolerated, but in many of these cases, escorts actually arrange to be trafficked so that they can leave their countries to work in the sex industry and pay to do so.
People tend to thread the terms of 'trafficking', 'coercion', 'pimped' and 'agency' together in one little bundle, but there is a world of difference between these terms, even if they often go hand-in-hand. It's completely understandable because people are permanently being drip-fed this the rhetoric articles of the tabloids, because naturally, they want to flog a few newspapers and stand by their 'moral ethics' in the perception of their Joe Public.
The Law is of course often ambiguous enough to be left to interpretation, that's probably another reason why these terms may be perceived to be worse than they actually are; it's a 'one-size to fit all' term in a lot of cases. As mentioned above, if someone books the flights for an escort and some money is thrown their way for the time and effort, they are, in essence, an agent (or even regarded as a pimp, depending on how far this wants to be spread). I would assume that under that label, they would be subjected to the same terms of imprisonment if they were charged and tried as guilty?
Even if the Swedish model was introduced, it is obvious that this will be more of a skim-over to the 'problem', not the remedy; escorts will still work and clients will be charged, but this will push things underground. It baffles me as to why the Irish Government don't just legalise it and enforce systems in place to control it and benefit from it? Surely this would mean less people in prison and safer work for sex workers, as well as ensure that sex workers could pay taxes without fear of prejudice? The issue seems to be 'down with that sort of thing!' in a country still held by it's religious principals.
Many thanks kingbee.
That looks like an extraordinary judgement !! :eek:
I thought that if the swedish model was brought in here, there still might be an escape route for clients to go North but these interpretations dont augur well for that scenario.:o
I wonder have any statistics been published as to whether or not the amount of bookings decreased ( or not ) in Sweden since they introduced their new laws ?
I think Sam's post is a very good summary of the situation to be honest. The only thing that's missing is the elephant in the room surrounding immigration policy, which I suspect more voluntary forms of "trafficking" are also being subjected to criminalisation and stigma. I was recently sent a 2006 documentary about trafficking in the Ukraine, and it cited that about 80% of the girls know they are being trafficked to engage in sex work.
Like LBT, a lot of the stuff I've read on criticism of the Swedish model focuses on the statistics, which are clearly fudged. There's also the issue which even Minister Alan Shatter and Swedish police sources acknowledge, which is that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex has had little effect on indoor sex work in Sweden and also in Norway. It's acknowledged since 95% of sex work now takes place in doors, it's an very hard thing to target legally. So it would appear that a direct replication of the Swedish legislation would not even be fit for purpose.
My own opinion is that it shouldn't be targeted at all, as aside from the brothel keeping provision of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, Shatter's recent mention of indoor sex work in the Seanad debate is really going too close to invading privacy and the inviolability of the dwelling. I'd much rather harm reduction and support services be put in place than go off on another crazy legislative experiment in criminalisation which would probably be a waste of resources, and difficult to enforce without a targeted blitz operation like that which occurred in Limerick.
FFS you lawyers!!!;) I can never understand a word of the law!! I reckon it is written like that on purpose to confuse the lay person and ensure employment for lawyers!!!:p Anyway, you can carve out a niche for yourself here Banjaxed. I'll be your first client if the legislation changes for the worse.:o
But thanks for the excerpt Banjaxed. However, my understanding is that the judge always has leeway to intepret the law? Hence the case in Northern Ireland quoted above, where the individual seemed to act as an agent. I would have thought that they would have charged him with profiting from, or facillitating prostitution, but instead they went for a trafficking charge? Which I thought was the harder conviction to obtain?
The only thing that makes me suspicious about the above account is that the Hungarian police were involved and apparently tipped the local coppers off. I wonder if that suggests that the ladies were part of a larger escorting syndicate that the Hungarian police were watching?
Oh, I'm sorry, that was the simplified plain English version, Morph :D On that note, as I've recently said to too posters who were interested in the area, my feeling is that's exactly what the law is about, and hence why I try to bring it into everyday conversation and try and remove the mystery from it. The main barrier to people reading up on it is the prohibitive cost of the textbooks and case report databases.
The PSNI, usually on advice from the Crown Prosecution Service as to the evidence, would set the charge. He was charged with three offences, one of trafficking, one of brothel keeping and one of controlling prostitution. It was accepted that there was no coercion and that the accused was not part of a criminal gang. There seems to be a few significant differences between the existing Irish and UK legislation which permits discretion. Section 5 of the 2008 Act in Ireland sets out the offence with a specific punishment of life imprisonment.
The full judgment hasn't yet been published from the Courts Office, but I'd assume that it's charged under section 57 Sexual Offences Act 2003 known as trafficking a person into the UK for the purpose of sexual exploitation. It doesn't require coercion, merely that you either bring or assist the person to enter for the purposes of prostitution. Very draconian in my view.
The Court heard that on three occasions between December 2010 and March 2011 Matyas Pis (“the defendant”) arranged for two women, referred to in court as A and B, to come to Belfast through Dublin Airport to work as prostitutes. A and B said they asked the defendant to book their air tickets, and he provided them with an apartment in Belfast. The women paid the defendant rent for the apartment and paid back their travelling expenses.
As for the theory about the tip-off, it's a possibility which was hinted at previously in the case. But the prosecution later accepted that the defendant wasn't involved in a criminal gang of any sort.
The "lite" version (no specifics of the sections the offences come under) of the judgment is here (http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20R%20v%20Matyas%20Pis/j_sj_R-v-Matyas-Pis_230412.html)
1. trafficking -paying for airline tickets even if asked to and repaid like a loan
2. controlling prostitution-arranging the accomodation and accepting rent
3. brothel as there is more than 1 girl
so this is how these apparently very serious sounding offences translate into the real world circumstances in this case- no mr big, no coercion or exploitation etc just a guy helping some girls to work(which is actually legal if they were each on their own)
it seems to me that the offence of' controlling prostitution' is so grey as to make even unwitting landlords culpable? after all this is what a property owner does- he arranges for a girl/girls to stay in his flat and he receives rent.This guy did not receive a cut of their earnings
I wonder if there is a defence to this - my god all landlords cant be expected to know what their tenants are doing?
1. trafficking -paying for airline tickets even if asked to and repaid like a loan
2. controlling prostitution-arranging the accomodation and accepting rent
3. brothel as there is more than 1 girl
so this is how these apparently very serious sounding offences translate into the real world circumstances in this case- no mr big, no coercion or exploitation etc just a guy helping some girls to work(which is actually legal if they were each on their own)
it seems to me that the offence of' controlling prostitution' is so grey as to make even unwitting landlords culpable? after all this is what a property owner does- he arranges for a girl/girls to stay in his flat and he receives rent.This guy did not receive a cut of their earnings
I wonder if there is a defence to this - my god all landlords cant be expected to know what their tenants are doing?
According to the judgment summary, his "significant financial benefit" must have been the rent. It's seemly an offence to "traffick" someone who wishes to work as a prostitute. If you take the facts of the case at face value.
Per the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/):
Section 52 Sexual Offences Act 2003
This offence came into force on 1 May 2004.
Under section 52(1) a person commits an offence if:
a) he intentionally causes or incites another person to become a prostitute in any part of the world, and
b) he does so for or in the expectation of gain for himself or third party.
"In any part of the world" means that section 52 is contravened when a person is caused or incited in England, Wales or Northern Ireland to become a prostitute either in that jurisdiction or elsewhere in the UK or overseas.
Unless something is a Strict Liability offence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_v_Parsley), you have to have knowledge that your property is being used for an unlawful purpose. You have to be aware that crime is ongoing at the premises, and so again, I'd imagine that reasonable grounds would come into it, and so it'd be a question of fact. Though it's unlikely that a landlord would be charged unless there was a clear link that they were conspiring with the criminal tenants.
many thanks for clarifying that it would seem that an innocent landlord is well protected from any charge of 'controlling' prostitution!!!
I can sleep well tonite and not worry about my buy to lets!!!
Ive had the same tenants for years now mind you im not so sure about those landlords that have the good fortune of recurrent short term lets from all these beautiful foreign girls:)
many thanks for clarifying that it would seem that an innocent landlord is well protected from any charge of 'controlling' prostitution!!!
I can sleep well tonite and not worry about my buy to lets!!!
Ive had the same tenants for years now mind you im not so sure about those landlords that have the good fortune of recurrent short term lets from all these beautiful foreign girls:)
Lucky you are not down South pal or tenants of questionable repute would be the least of your worries --- the Banks would be a far bigger headache.!!:mad: