Policing and Crime Bill
20th May 2009
David Burrowes supports a Bill to tackle the trafficking and exploitation of women and children, but raises concerns over the practicalities of the clause where a person commits the offence of 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute controlled for gain' whether or not they know that the prostitute is ‘controlled for gain’.
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): My hon. Friend mentions a point of principle, but is there not also a point of practice in respect of parity with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, especially where there is an incorporation of a mental element? In the light of the proposed amendments, we also need to reflect on circumstances involving forced threats and deception; there should be parity of sentencing—not a level 3 fine, but an either-way offence.
Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend anticipates me, and his points are well made. That is why we see merit in the proposal in new clause 25 for a “know or ought to know” test instead of a strict liability test, which would mean that it would be an offence only if the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the prostitute was controlled for gain. That will ensure that strict liability does not apply and it also deals with the issue of parity, to which my hon. Friend referred. The offence would require actual knowledge of or recklessness in respect of the circumstances; the person who should have known should be presumed to have had knowledge.
