For a trial ( at magistrates) as messed up as his, a complete walk would be a prospect if he wanted to take that route, the PPS (CPS) are taking steps, I’ll keep you posted.

He wasn’t supposed to be charged at all. In May 2008, sex trafficking was off the docket, a lack of evidence etc.

So we had the police, CPS, sitting in court watching a man being convicted for something he wasn’t supposed to be charged with, how state of the judicial art is that?

The entire UKHTC issue is a mess here.

Julie Bindel got upset with me re: an email from me in 2008 asking Patrick Corrigan at Amnesty if his numbers reflected ordinary women going in the back of the van, which was the case.

“This was part of a UK-wide operation which uncovered 167 victims of sex trafficking and led to the arrest of over 500 suspected traffickers.”

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17813

That was hyperbole.

Gregory

Response as follows-

PPS Spokesperson:

The defendant was charged by Police on 12 January 2008 with the following offences;

* Trafficking within the UK for Sexual Exploitation, contrary to section 58(1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
* Controlling Prostitution for Gain ,contrary to section 53(1) of the Sexual offences Act 2003

On receipt of the police investigation file the PPS considered the available evidence and found that the Test for Prosecution was met only in relation to the offence of Controlling Prostitution for Gain .

On 21 May 2008 a decision issued from PPS to prosecute the defendent for the offence of Controlling Prostitution for Gain.

The Trafficking charge before the court was not withdrawn. This was an administrative error which has now been brought to the attention of the PPS . Steps are now being taken to recitify this error.

Regards

Lynn

—–Original Message—–

> From: Gregory
>
> Carlin [ mailto:gregory.carlin@ntlworld.com
> ]
>
> Sent: 07 July 2008 14:41
>
> To: patrick.corrigan@amnesty.org.uk ; anna.lo@niassembly.gov.uk
>
>
> Cc: press@amnesty.org.uk
> ; david.ford@niassembly.gov.uk
> ;
>
> Birnie, Esmond
>
> Subject: 500 suspected traffickers?
>
>
>
>
>
> This was part of a UK-wide operation which
>
> uncovered 167 victims of sex trafficking and led to the
> arrest of over
>
> 500 suspected traffickers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> Don’t you think they’re potentially including
> everything going into
>
> back of the van?

Recently two men attacked a brothel and splashed petrol around. A rival brotehl is seems. The girl managed to call the owner, who called 999. The police said they were not interested on the brothel but the wellfare of the women working there. So the owners made the stupid mistake and helped the police. Well as you guess they are NOW HELPING THE POLICE WITH THEIR ENQUIRIES are on bail, had all thier phones and PCs confiscated, their home searched and are now awaiting the out come. They are not even be asked to complete a statement for the attack, and nothing has been done about the attackers.

Seems the police are taking the easy case, and hoping to make a mint with the proceeds of crime.

There is some loose wording, such as what, exactly, is a position of strength and what, precisely, a position of vulnerability, for example, but as a basis for future domestic law, I think it has a lot going for it. Which is probably why our Home Office has f***ed it up so much!

The UK law sounds awful!

A definite great read..Jim Bean