Happy Ending

On 29th April a jury of 10 men and four women sitting in Luton Crown Court acquitted Claire Finch of keeping a brothel at her home in Chalton, Bedfordshire. Ms Finch, 49, a qualified masseuse ran a massage parlour from her three bedroom detached house and also offered clients massage with a ‘happy ending’.

Ms Finch worked with other women, some of whom would provide a full range of sexual services. The decision to work collectively was based largely on concerns for the women’s safety. There were not more than two to three women working at any one time. The youngest woman was 32. There was no drug use nor did Ms Finch allow anyone who was not a friend or acquaintance to work with her. There was no coercion and no illegal immigrants. Any money that was earned by any of the women was split 50/50, with Ms Finch’s half destined to pay for the advertising and overheads. Ms Finch and her colleagues worked in this way under the name ‘Astrid’s Massage Parlour’. During the trial, three of Ms Finch’s neighbours, including her next-door neighbour Joan (85) testified that they knew what Ms Finch did for a living and that she was the ideal neighbour.

‘Astrid’s’ was just one of the many massage parlours that advertised in local and regional press such as the Luton and Dunstable News. During the trial, the police admitted that since 2003 they had had intelligence that the premises were being used for the provision of sexual services but did nothing to prevent its operation. Ms Finch told the jury that in 2004 she had been visited at home by two police officers who knew that she was running a massage parlour. These officers warned her about a man they were aware of who was going to massage parlours and then getting violent with the women if they refused to provide the services he asked for.

It is not illegal to sell sexual services for money, but it is illegal to run a brothel. The law defines a brothel as a premises where more than one person provides sexual services. From the outset, Ms Finch, the English Collective of Prostitutes and scores of supporters, including her neighbours and her local MP (Conservative Nadine Dorris), expressed their outrage to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecuting her when she was working collectively but safely from her own home.

However, the reason why Ms Finch’s case may be unique is that it is thought to be the first case where a jury has been asked to consider the defence of necessity of circumstances in respect of a charge of keeping a brothel.

Pre-trial disclosure and Freedom of Information Act requests by the defence showed that in the past five years there have been over 20,000 recorded acts of violence against women in Bedfordshire. It was difficult to decipher how many of these recorded incidents involved women working in the sex industry because, as the police themselves recognised, many of these women either do not report offences or chose not to identify their profession to the police, perhaps for fear of prosecution. What the police did disclose was that there were at least 18 incidents of serious violence against sex workers between 2005 and 2009, including offences of rape, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm. The case was also timely. The day before the start of the trial the BBC aired its three-part drama about the Ipswich prostitute murders.

Ms Finch told the jury that although she had been fortunate before the police raid to never have had a client ‘go weird on her’, after her arrest she was forced to work at home alone. During this time, she called the police to attend after a client had become physical when she had refused to comply with his wishes. Ms Finch also stated that since she had stopped working collectively, she had been compelled to offer a full range of sexual services to clients, not just ‘ happy endings’.

Her Honour Judge Mensa directed the jury that if they found on the balance of probabilities that Ms Finch faced an immediate threat of unlawful violence or death and that she acted reasonably in order to avoid it, they then must acquit her. The jury did just that, unanimously and in little over two hours.

The case therefore raises an important question for policy makers and law reform: if the legislature is serious about protecting women who choose to work in the sex industry from exploitation, violence and exposure to the risk of drug abuse, should they not enhance the opportunities for women to make empowered choices to work collectively in safe environments?

Collective working allowed Ms Finch to be selective with which clients she saw and when. Working from her home mostly by appointment meant that she could avoid streetcrawlers or being driven in a client’s car to an isolated location. Ms Finch also provided the services that she was comfortable with and no more. In closing its case, the Crown told the jury that Ms Finch had only worked with others in order that she could work less. But there is a real empowerment issue here: why should a woman who chooses to provide sexual services be required to work all hours, alone and at risk, doing whatever clients demand just to make ends meet? Part of the debate taking place on the continent revolves around the EU’s cornerstone commitment to give its citizens the right to work in a safe, regulated work place. Why should those in the sex industry be denied that right?

If the new Government is to seriously engage in the debate surrounding prostitution, then Ms Finch’s case strongly suggests that public opinion may favour moving away from the simplistic approach – that the way to prevent any exploitation of women is to close down every premises where women work, thereby forcing people onto the streets or further underground. It is time to recognise that if a woman does exercise her free choice to engage in sex work, she is entitled to do that work as safely as possible.

Anna Morris represented Claire Finch, instructed by Lawton’s Solicitors, Luton. She is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and Vice Chair of the Haldane Society