Sex-work agency acquitted of all counts following 3-month trial at Southwark Crown Court | Case exposes lack of legal certainty in the sex industry
Tarquin McCalla (Sperrin Law) and Jessie Smith (Doughty Street Chambers), instructed by Tricia O’Sullivan (Sperrin Law), represented one of 8 defendants charged with human trafficking, controlling prostitution for gain and money laundering.
The alleged conspiracy concerned the operation of an escort agency in London over many years. The agency was headed by a former sex-worker. Following a significant police investigation, including the deployment of undercover operatives and service of over 150,000 pages of documentary, financial and phone material (including over 200,000 messages on the defendant’s phone), the Crown conceded there was no evidence of violence, force, threats, or coercion. The escorts could freely choose the characteristics of their clients, and the services performed. The women could also work for multiple agencies. The Crown’s case therefore focused on subtle distinctions between the lawful and unlawful sale of sex. The prosecution sought to prove that “control” was established by the agreement of commission fees, working hours, a minimum hourly rate, the allocation of work, the provision of security and transport, and the existence of a “dress code”. The provision of a private driver was initially said to underpin the trafficking charge.
The case demonstrates the lack of legal certainty concerning the offences of controlling prostitution for gain and human trafficking. Escort agencies are lawful and attract VAT. However, the conduct described above can attract serious criminal sanction. There remains an uneasy tension between the legalisation of prostitution and the apparent prohibition of many types of consensual and non-coercive business practices. Much of this uncertainty flows from the Court of Appeal decision of R v Massey [2007] EWCA Crim 2664.
Jessie prepared a number of legal submissions, which were adopted by all co-defendants. These concerned the structure of the indictment, arguing that counts of human trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain were overlapping, could not be put as alternatives, and potentially gave rise to an abuse of process. The trafficking count – which attracted life imprisonment – was withdrawn before the jury were empanelled. Extensive Legal argument was then developed on the statutory interpretation of “control” and the employment law status of sex-workers in an agency setting.
The defendant gave evidence and was cross-examined. A significant volume of defence material was collated, including evidence from an escort about her experience at the agency. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all counts.
