In a amazing victory, on 29 April 2010 in Luton Crown Court, Claire Finch was found not guilty of a criminal charge of keeping a brothel. The jury, in line with public opinion, refused to criminalise Ms Finch for working together with friends from her own home for safety. The jury of 8 men and 4 women was out for just an hour and a half and the verdict was unanimous.

The English Collective of Prostitutes, who supported Ms Finch in her case claim that ‘this malicious prosecution was motivated by a moral crusade and financial incentives for the police’.  The shocking behaviour of the police in this case, appears to verify the claim by the ECP that ‘since Proceeds of Crime legislation was introduced, police are able to keep any money resulting from raids’. This not guilty verdict greatly strengthens the case for sex work to be decriminalised so that women are able to work more safely together.

Ms Claire Finch was facing brothel keeping charges and a prison sentence because she prioritised safety by working with friends at her home. This prosecution is in line with New Labour’s prostitution strategy which is driving the sex industry underground and women into more danger.  It is not in the public interest.

Ms Finch said: “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.” In order to ensure safety, Ms Finch worked in shifts with three other women.  There was never a time when one woman was left on her own.  Since she was raided Ms Finch has been forced to work alone.

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 £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.

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.  This theft by law enforcement is the worst form of pimping.

The CPS is supposed to bear in mind public interest considerations when considering charges.  Ms Finch’s situation contradicts every one of them.

Public interest considerations for brothel keeping charges are:

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

REALITY: A criminal conviction is the biggest obstacle to leaving prostitution.

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

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

3) To prevent people leading or forcing others into prostitution

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

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

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

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

REALITY: 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.

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

REALITY: 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.”

For working collectively in a safe non-exploitative way, Ms Finch faced losing her home and a prison sentence of up to seven years.  The laws which allow such prosecutions must be abolished and prostitution must be decriminalised.  Safety comes first.

**many thanks to the ECP more much of the information in this post**