A woman who sold sex from home along with colleagues goes on trial in the UK for brothel-keeping. This charge is possible when laws are written to discourage people from exploiting others for gain, living off immoral earnings and a host of other vague conditions. The sex worker in question, Claire Finch, alternated shifts with a couple of colleagues so that no one was ever alone:  ‘My main thing is safety. It’s not safe to work on your own. With two of us you had back up, you had camaraderie.’ Since she was raided she has had to work alone.

So prostitutes must work alone; they may use no management or support services; share no workplace; enjoy no collegial relationships. Only independent workers are to be respected even minimally. The contradictions of such laws are simply bizarre.

The story behind the trial and further comments are from the ECP:

On 19 November 2008, 20 uniformed police officers from Kempston Economic Crime Unit, kicked in Ms Finch’s front door and searched every room in the house including Ms Finch’s personal belongings, taking over £700 from her purse that had been put aside to pay the mortgage. Her laptop computer, mobile phone, driving licence and passport were also taken. No receipt was given.

Brothel-keeping charges were introduced in 1956. Since Proceeds of Crime legislation (reinforced by the Policing and Crime Act), raids and prosecutions against women working from premises have escalated. Police and prosecutors have a vested interest: the police keep 25% of any assets confiscated both at the time and from subsequent prosecutions (50% in some areas); the Crown Prosecution Service keeps another 25%; and the Inland Revenue the rest. Even if no one is charged, the money is rarely returned. Women who have worked for years to put money aside lose not only their livelihood but their home, car, life savings, jewellery, etc.

Finch’s case contradicts the Crown Prosecution Service’s obligation to consider the public interest when considering charge. Public-interest considerations for brothel-keeping charges are:

To encourage prostitutes to find routes out of prostitution and to deter those who create the demand for it

A criminal conviction is the biggest obstacle to leaving prostitution.

To keep prostitutes off the street to prevent annoyance to members of the public

Ms Finch’s neighbours have no complaints and are coming to court to support her. Closing down premises drives women onto the street where it is ten times more dangerous to work.

To prevent people leading or forcing others into prostitution

All the women were working consensually and independently. There was no force, coercion, violence or trafficking.

To penalise those who organise prostitutes and make a living from their earnings.

There was no profiteering. Everyone worked collectively and shared expenses.

Generally, the more serious the incident, the more likely a prosecution will be required

While time and money are going into prosecuting Ms Finch, the investigation of rape and other violence continues to be downgraded. Public opinion opposes women being criminalised for working collectively and consensually.

The age of the prostitute and the position of those living off the earnings will be relevant

All the women working with Ms Finch were over forty, mature women able “to make their own minds up. They’re not being hoodwinked.” Ms Finch has said that as a mother, working with inexperienced younger women “would not sit morally well with me.”

The case is to be tried at Luton Crown Court, 9.30, Monday 26 April to Thursday 29 April.