SAFETY FIRST
A
coalition to decriminalise sex work and prioritise all women’s and
children’s safety
BRIEFING ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE &
IMMIGRATION BILL 2007
Re: Clause 72 – Orders to
promote rehabilitation
(amendment to the Street Offences Act)
CONTENTS
1.
The Safety First Coalition
2.
What is Clause 72?
3.
Arguments Against Clause 72
4.
Individual responses from Safety First members:
·
Cari Mitchell, English Collective of Prostitutes,
Safety First co-ordinators
·
Andrea Spyropoulos,
Royal College of Nursing
·
Harry Fletcher, National Association of Probation
Officers
·
Pauline Campbell, mother of Sarah who died in the
‘care’ of HMP Styal
·
John Furniss, Multiple Choice Rehabilitation Centre
·
Reverend Paul Nicolson, Zacchaeus 2000
·
Siobhan Kilkenny, sex worker
project
·
Sue Conlon, Tyndallwoods solicitors
·
Toni Cole, 1st private prosecution for rape
in England & Wales
·
Reverend Andrew Dotchin, Ipswich
·
Camille Shah, resident, Ipswich
·
Dr Michael Goodyear, Dept. of Medicine, Dalhousie
University, Canada
5. Responses from
other organisations
·
The Green Party
·
Communications Workers Union
6. Contact details
for Safety First Coalition
1. THE SAFETY FIRST COALITION
The Coalition which includes members of the church,
nurses, doctors, probation officers, drug reformers, anti-rape
organisations, residents from red light areas, sex workers, sex worker
projects and many others, was formed in the aftermath of the murders of
five young women in Ipswich, to press for women’s safety to be
prioritised and for an end to the criminalisation which makes sex
workers more vulnerable to attack.
2. WHAT IS CLAUSE 72?
The Clause introduces compulsory
rehabilitation under threat of imprisonment. Promoted as an alternative
to a fine, Clause 72 requires anyone arrested for loitering or
soliciting to attend a series of three meetings with a supervisor
approved by the court “to promote rehabilitation, by assisting the
offender to address the causes of their involvement in prostitution and
to find ways of ending that involvement.”
Failure to attend results in a summons back to
court and a possible 72-hours imprisonment. Magistrates would have
powers to make subsequent orders so that women could end up on a
treadmill of broken supervision meetings, court orders and
imprisonment. Even the Magistrates Association has expressed concern.
3. SUMMARY ARGUMENTS AGAINST
CLAUSE 72
·
Clause 72 purports to
help women get out of prostitution. Most sex workers are mothers and/or
young people struggling to survive.
The Bill contains no
provision for extra resources
to address the
poverty, debt, rape and domestic
violence, homelessness, drug use, depression or a combination of these,
which force many women and young people into prostitution. And the
government has announced that drug services are being cut.
·
Clause 72 will increase women’s vulnerability to rape
and other violence. Women will be forced underground into more
isolated and dangerous areas to avoid arrest and imprisonment.
Criminalisation discourages women from coming forward to report violence
and those who do report are often dismissed because of their
occupation. Violent men are left able to attack again. According to
the most conservative estimates, at least 60 prostitute women have been
murdered in the last 10 years. The shameful 5.6% conviction rate for
rape must also be tackled.
·
Evidence shows that
compulsory rehabilitation schemes on arrest do not help.
What is needed is services independent of the criminal justice system
based on women’s expressed needs.
·
Imprisoning women for
non-violent offences goes against recommendations in the HO commissioned
Corston report (March
2007). Imprisoning women, as society’s primary carers, destroys
families, starting with the thousands of children separated from their
mothers’ love, guidance and concern.
·
A criminal record
makes it almost impossible for sex workers to get another job,
thus institutionalising them in prostitution.
4. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES FROM SAFETY FIRST
MEMBERS
Cari Mitchell, English Collective of
Prostitutes, Safety First co-ordinators
“Compulsory orders under threat of imprisonment are punitive and fly
in the face of an increasingly discerning and compassionate public
opinion. Prison sentences for loitering and soliciting were abolished
long ago but the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Criminal
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders has reintroduced them through the back
door. Now women will be imprisoned in the name of rehabilitation! How
can sex workers be expected to attend rehabilitation meetings when no
resources are being made available to address practical needs such as
housing, debt, a viable income, treatment for those who want off to get
drugs or other help? How can they be expected to take on other jobs
when a criminal record makes that also impossible? Why are our views on
consenting sex vs rape always ignored? Is anything more degrading that
being treated as a victim who can’t speak for herself?”
Andrea Spyropoulos,
Royal College of Nursing
”The RCN has concerns that the measures promoted in
Clause 72 will not help more men and women out of prostitution¨, and
fear that the punitive measures in the Bill could lead to greater
detention of some of the most vulnerable, stigmatised and marginalised
people in society. We have concerns that the intention to provide
better access to health service through the series of three
rehabilitation meetings will not deliver the outcomes anticipated.
“The key reason we oppose Clause 72 is that there’s
an element of compulsion. It’s punitive. It’s not about caring or
protection. It’s about persecution and we need to say this isn’t the
way to go. One thing we know as medical staff is that where we have
compulsion, it doesn’t work. If you try and force someone into
rehabilitation, they will go if they have no choice but it doesn’t
necessarily produce the outcome that you want to achieve.
“The money that’s going to be spent on the
implementation of this Clause needs to be put into the other areas that
we know feed the need for people to work. We’d much rather see an
amendment that offers the opportunity of a choice for people but it
should never, ever, be tagged to compulsory services.
“In April 2006, RCN members voted overwhelmingly in
favour of the decriminalisation of prostitution at its annual Congress.
RCN members voiced their belief that decriminalisation would remove the
stigma around the sex trade, allowing both men and women to access the
health care they need.
“We have to ask ourselves ‘does the law actually
prevent prostitution, does it help the women, the men or the public in
any way?’ It does none of those things. Normally laws are there either
to prevent something or to punish, and we believe that punishment has no
role to play in this situation. Consenting sex between adults is a
private affair. We do not believe that the criminal justice system is
the right place to tackle that.
“The reasons we voted for decriminalisation are
based entirely on health. When we spoke to our members we discovered
that sex workers were often marginalised and vulnerable. They felt that
they couldn’t access services in the same way as the general public
because there was a perception that they were lesser individuals, that
in some way they didn’t deserve the same sort of care. I’m ashamed to
say that in some cases they were treated differently. Our members were
saying to us: we need to reverse that, we need to support women who are
in the sex trade.
“This is 2007. The principles in this Bill are
based on an Edwardian idea of sex work and we should be strong enough to
stand outside that. I hope we can convince the people who need to be
convinced that this is not a good thing for health.”
Harry Fletcher, Assistant General Secretary,
National Association of Probation Officers
“These new measures will turn the clock back by 25
years. Thousands of prostitutes face the prospect of being jailed for
up to 72 hours if they fail to obey new court orders set out in the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The order will require the
offender to attend a series of three meetings with a named supervisor
who will in all probability be from the Probation Service.
“Prostitutes are unlikely to attend compulsory
meetings when they know that there is no alternative source of
employment or income. It is highly unlikely that three sessions with a
trained counsellor will persuade any prostitutes to give up their work.
A high breach rate will, therefore, lead to yet more prison and police
cell overcrowding. The breach rate for anti social behaviour orders is
over 60%. NAPO predicts there will be a similar outcome for these
orders. Neither the Probation Service nor other named supervisors will
be given any resources to deal with alternatives to prostitution, such
as employment, voluntary drug services, affordable housing and
training. The Bill is silent on what resources and powers will be given
to persuade prostitutes to change their lifestyle and certainly no
resources are available to change their economic circumstances. There
is a real risk that community homes, police stations, and prisons will
be overwhelmed by women who are in default of their orders.
“Compulsory orders and criminalisation contradict
the government’s own recommendations made in the Home Office’s Research
Study (279) Tackling Street Prostitution: towards a holistic approach,
which concluded that ‘generally the use of traditional enforcement
involving police crackdowns did not appear to reduce disorder.’ and
that the best way of deterring prostitution was ‘the importance of the
right support being available at the right time’.”
Pauline Campbell
mother of Sarah who died in the ‘care’ of HMP Styal
“I am opposed to Clause 72 for the following
reasons:
- At the risk of sound simplistic, our jails are
full. Any legislation that involves sending ever increasing numbers
of women to jail is unworkable.
- Sending more women to prison is cruel,
ineffective and unkind, and will merely make a bad situation worse
for women whose lives are already chaotic.
- My daughter’s death in 2003 highlighted a
great injustice whereby women are sent to prisons that cannot meet
their human needs. My statement is reinforced by the fact that a
further 30 women have tragically died since then (apparently
self-inflicted deaths; England and Wales). Many were mothers. Who
is supposed to look after the motherless children left behind? What
has happened to humanity and compassion?
- Jailing women for three days flies in the face
of the recommendations of the Corston Report (published March
2007). The key proposal of this report is that Ministers should set
up a timetable within six months to close down existing women’s
prisons and replace them with a local network of small custodial
units reserved only for those who are a danger to the public.
Another key recommendation is “Community solutions for non-violent
women offenders should be the norm.” (p58). The government’s
response to the report is still outstanding.
- Three days in jail will not change the
behaviour of vulnerable women with very complex needs; to believe
otherwise would be a reflection of Victorian ignorance.
“There is a moral imperative to prioritise all
women’s and children’s safety. There is an urgent need to look at viable
economic alternatives and resources for women, anything less means that
women are short changed.”
John Furniss, Multiple
Choice Rehabilitation Centre
“Three meetings is window dressing, meaningless…
People will miss meetings due to their drug use and the need to earn
money to support that, and to support their children.
“It’s also brutalising to threaten people with
prison who are already being imprisoned time and time again. Women’s
prisons are horrendous, suicides rates are very high. They are
destroying lives and hurting people needlessly. Breaking up families
like this is wrong and very cruel indeed.
“What I know from the
‘coal face’ is that Community Rehabilitation Orders offer a lower
standard of medical care and displace people. If you move people away
from one area they go to another area. And that’s happening across the
country.
“Women at the 'lower
end' of the sex trade are no different from anyone else. They are not
worse addicts, they love their children and grieve when they are
separated from them just as any mother would. But criminalization makes
them more vulnerable: to arrest, exploitation, discrimination, to being
misjudged, ignored and dismissed.
“The 'abused exploited
individual sex worker' is in the same sentence the 'persistent
anti-social prostitute addict' who needs compulsory interventions
sanctioned by the courts. Drug services are very aware that poverty,
being in care, prison and a crap education contribute to addiction,
prostitution and shoplifting. However, in the current matrix, projects
are funnelled into being soft and not so soft police and agents of the
courts. With an ever growing set of recidivist drug offenders, this
policy frustrates and disturbs many of us.
“A few in the drugs
field are now challenging the repressive criminal justice responses. A
different approach, one that’s centred on the needs and experiences of
people addicted to drugs needs to come into play. The money that is
being spent on persecuting sex workers could actually improve their
lives rather than providing work for the law enforcement specialists,
consultants, court officers, researchers and drug services.
“The authorities must provide useful and compassionate responses to the
repeated incidents where women are killed, hurt and saddled with the
burden of addiction. We believe that decriminalisation is a necessary
step for women to get the respect and protection every worker is
entitled to as well the support they may need to get off drugs and out
of prostitution if they want to. Help not persecution.”
Reverend Paul Nicolson Zacchaeus 2000
“My questions on Clause 72 are: What resources will
be provided, will there be any backup? The police are overstretched and
resources are already being cut. How will the supervisors be regulated?
Will there be a right to an appeal against an order to attend meetings?
How will supervisors interpret ‘reasonable excuse’? -- there may be as
many interpretations of ‘reasonable excuse’ as there are supervisors.
Will legal aid be available? At the time of the poll tax magistrates
were putting people in prison by the dozen and there was no right to
legal aid, no right to representation, no right to a fair trial. So a
team took a case to Europe and Europe decided that if the magistrate was
ever minded to put someone in prison, they have to employ the duty
solicitor. It simply cannot be that you can put someone in prison
without a fair trial. Will that apply in this case? It is extremely
important in the interests of natural justice that it does.
“All unemployment benefits are below the
government’s poverty threshold. People do not depend on benefits that
are not enough for survival in this increasingly expensive economy.
Other means of survival have to be found… Paying the Price researchers
reported that survival - covering household expenses and raising
children, are the overriding motivations for prostitution.
Young people are leaving care at 16 with no
financial and no family support. And if when local authorities finally
get around to carrying out their duty to assess their needs, they get
£36.85 pence to live on independently. And there is no kind of trouble
that they do not get into, in order to survive.
Making people destitute as a matter of policy is
institutional violence, it sets the tone and it gives dangerous
authority for violence of all kinds. It is inhuman and it is no way to
lead a nation into peace and justice.”
Siobhan Kilkenny, sex worker project
“I oppose Clause 72. My first concern, as somebody
who has worked in and around the drugs and homelessness field for years
with sex workers, is how the emphasis appears to be on the sex worker to
change her behaviour. Where are the resources going to be placed to
allow this ‘rehabilitation’ to happen? Street sex workers are a
vulnerable group of people, to place them in prison for any period of
time is unacceptable. A section of this community will never
realistically be able to comply with the ‘three appointments’ set out in
this order, and will invariably end up in a cycle of being held in
cells, attending court, and receiving another order or fine.
“Criminalising these people, in whatever ‘caring way’ it is dressed up
unavoidably will make the most vulnerable and invisible more vulnerable
and invisible and allow room for the tragedies in Ipswich to happen yet
again.
“Criminalisation impacts massively on the safety of
vulnerable women. Over a three month period, we had 30 instances of
violence against sex workers – which were in no way are a reflection of
all the violence. Of these about a quarter were reported to the police.
To my knowledge, none went anywhere after the initial officer. In six
years I remember only three instances of violence which went to court,
two were successful, one was dropped. Where do all these men go? Do
they continue offending?
“People are criminalised, powerless and
marginalised. This allows the police and others to discriminate against
prostitute women. A woman I worked with was beaten and raped on
moorland. She was found by a passing driver who took her in. He
contacted the police, who came and arrested her. That’s how real the
risk of criminalisation is. It leads to a need to be invisible and
transient, so women lose access to services. A few of the women I work
with have no doctor, claim no benefit, have no NI number, are not part
of a drug treatment programme – they don’t exist to all intents and
purposes. So if they do go missing no-one will know.
“We worked with Analee Alderton who was found dead
in December last year. She disappeared after about a year. We hadn’t
managed to help her in any effective way. It was shocking and horrible
to find out what had happened to Annalee. But what’s also shocking is
that we could have recorded her disappearance as a success. Projects
are asked for monthly figures around exiting women from prostitution
because funding heavily relies on the crime agenda, ie clearing women
off the streets, rather the health agenda. To be treating the most
vulnerable women like this is a terrible reflection on the society we
live in.”
Sue Conlon, Tyndallwoods solicitors
“Clause 72 takes away the right to self
determination. We know how women would be coerced into volunteering for
these counselling sessions, because pressure is brought to bear. Choice
has disappeared in the way that it has been set up. But in addition,
and this is one of the unfortunate characteristics of too much of Labour
government legislation, we are introducing more and more of what I would
call administrative detention. Women are imprisoned on the basis of
allegations, you’re not charged with anything. Therefore in my mind
it’s part of administrative detention and it has no place in a
democracy.
“On the issue of reasonable excuse. If this
legislation is passed, and if it is considered appropriate to “help”
these women by forcing them to abide by these meetings, and if they fail
to go through this process, then they will not be able to put forward
any explanation that will be acceptable to anybody in authority. I know
this because that’s exactly how it is interpreted in immigration law and
practice. There is in fact no reasonable explanation that you can give
for failing to keep to these meetings that you’ve allegedly agreed to..
Toni Cole, 1st private prosecution for rape in England &
Wales
“As an ex prostitute, drug counsellor and the sister of a heroin addict,
I view Clause 72 as a travesty. The very idea of compulsory
rehabilitation is ludicrous. The want is imperative for
rehabilitation – any addict must, first and foremost, want to come off
drugs. The courts cannot make the decision for them. To force a drug
addict into rehab is doomed to failure. When an addict decides that
they wish to come off, then, and only then, will any form of rehab be
successful. Success will depend upon the support being available to the
addict at the time of that momentous decision.
“I have seen many an addict, including my sister, go through the
rehabilitation process to be told at the end ‘there, you are off drugs
now so off you go’. It is farcical to return a ‘clean’ addict to the
streets without coping mechanisms in place. What are they returning
to? Complete support programmes need to be in place, with the total
agreement of the addict.
“On proposals to adopt the Swedish model of criminalising the clients of
prostitutes, does the government really think that it will deter them?
I am a survivor of rape at knife point from a client, a serial rapist
who preyed upon sex workers because he thought that we would not be
heard when we reported violent attacks. He was right, and it took a
private prosecution to stop him and show that prostitute women have the
same right as any other woman to say no. Rather than criminalising all
clients, it makes legal, moral and social sense to prosecute violent
clients when they are reported for rape, attack, abuse and murder. Not
because they want to buy sex!!”
Reverend Andrew
Dotchin, Ipswich
“If offers
of help and rehabilitation continue to
come with the threat of
conviction for non-compliance we diminish the probability of fragile
young men and women making the correct
choices to live healthy and helpful lifestyles. For our
compassion to be turned into deeds we need a change in the law which
will enable people of good will from all sectors of public life to work
with the outcasts of society and restore them to community
instead of turning them into criminals.”
Camille Shah, resident, Ipswich
“In Ipswich there is widespread compassion and
concern for sex workers and I was very proud at the time of the murders
to be an Ipswich resident because the mood was very much that they were
Ipswich women, Ipswich daughters and they were Ipswich mothers as well.
Since the murders my sex worker friend hasn’t
received the support we had hoped for. Because of the zero tolerance
policies that are being rigorously enforced she’s moved to Norwich to
work.
“So while street prostitution is being removed,
there is no improvement to support services and safety for women in
Ipswich.”
Dr Michael Goodyear, Dept. of Medicine,
Dalhousie University, Canada
“Public health measures must be built on evidence
based best practice. Only by moving sex work outside of the criminal
justice system, focussing on public health and social care, can we
achieve this and help to break the cycle of violence. Criminalisation of
sex work that limits access to care contravenes UN guidelines on human
rights.
“Remedies for social issues surrounding
prostitution lie not in legislative measures but in social determinants
such as wage disparity and access to welfare that limit women’s
choices. Labour politicians frequently state that the moral fibre of a
society must be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members,
yet their policy discriminates against the most disadvantaged.
“The Home Office has been using Anti-Social Behaviour Orders for the
control of prostitution to effectively re-criminalise aspects
of prostitution without resort to the legislature, and interpreting the
enabling legislation broadly. In Ipswich and elsewhere, this forced
women into more dangerous locations and isolated them from support
services. To be consistent with the aims of decriminalisation this must
cease, and there needs to be a moratorium on enforcement of the
statutory provisions, and a diversion of policing from prosecution to
protection. They cannot do both. Gemma, Tania, Anneli, Paula and Annette
were some mother’s daughters, and some childrens’ mothers… They deserved
better, but we failed them. We will honour them best, not just by
memorials, but by doing the right thing.”
5. OTHER ORGANISATIONS
The Green Party
“Criminalisation of many parts of the sex industry
leaves those working within it in a vulnerable position. They are often
unable to turn to the law for help in cases where their rights are
violated, and instead fall prey to criminal gangs and pimps.
“…Workers in the sex industry should enjoy the same
rights as other workers such as the right to join unions, the right to
choose whether to work co-operatively with others, etc.
“…There should be zero tolerance of coercion,
violence, or sexual abuse (including Child abuse). Those who have been
trafficked into the country and forced to work in the sex industry
against their will should receive protection under the law. There
should be legal support for sex workers who want to sue those who
exploit their labour unfairly, and access to re-training for those sex
workers who want to leave the industry.”
Communications Workers Union
At their annual conference in June 2007, CWU agreed
to lobby the government to decriminalise prostitution.
6. CONTACT DETAILS FOR SAFETY FIRST COALITION
Email:
ecp@allwomencount.net
Tel: 020 7482
2496
|