Seeking legal advice

[Uncled]

With the passing of the new prostitution laws I’ve been wondering about the chances of being charged and convicted under different circumstances.

I’m sure that LE will be setting up sting operations. Using BP to lure men to hotel incalls or apartments with female undercover cops posing as SPs, possibly even video recording the encounters. No doubt, if you are caught in one of these stings, you’re screwed. They have all the evidence they need to convict you.

But consider the following scenario. You rent a hotel room and invite an SP over, taking care to keep your texts, emails, or voice conversations vague (not discussing money or services). Now I know it’s highly unlikely, but suppose for the sake of argument that the police have her under surveillance and they see her enter your hotel room. Do the police have the authority to bust into the room to catch you in the act? If the SP throws you under the bus and admits that you paid her for sex, then you’re screwed. But if both you and the SP absolutely refuse to admit that money changed hands, is that enough to save you?

Or what if a traveling SP sets up an incall in a hotel room and LE puts the room under surveillance. Is that room considered a “bawdy house”. If the police bust in and catch you having sex, is that enough to convict you, even if they don’t see or have evidence of money changing hands?

I’m hoping that there are some pooning lawyers or police officers that participate in these forums and can give some advice.

 

[clu]

Speaking of legal advice, I expect John Ince will be getting more business soon. I'm surprised I haven't read anything in the media from him on this one. He was pretty vocal in the polygamy/polyamory test case.

 

[Fullhouse]

Uncled, I think those are all very valid questions ----- and I also would like to know the legal answers to them.

Also, what if the lady, who may be under surveillance, comes to our place ???

I think this whole C-36 crap has put a whole new meaning to "getting screwed"..

 

[Uncled]

I received the following response in a private message and I would like to pass it on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DipArse
But consider the following scenario. You rent a hotel room and invite an SP over, taking care to keep your texts, emails, or voice conversations vague (not discussing money or services). Now I know it’s highly unlikely, but suppose for the sake of argument that the police have her under surveillance and they see her enter your hotel room. Do the police have the authority to bust into the room to catch you in the act?

Response:
If they have good reason to believe that a crime is in progress - yes, they do. But it's very unlikely that they would feel the need to (the incremental "evidence" value just wouldn't justify a SWAT response).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DipArse
If the SP throws you under the bus and admits that you paid her for sex, then you’re screwed. But if both you and the SP absolutely refuse to admit that money changed hands, is that enough to save you?

Response:
Not really.
What matters in court is "fact", and despite the assertions otherwise, neither you nor the lady... or even the cops or prosecutors, for that matter... get to determine what is "fact". The determination of "fact" is the exclusive domain of the cat (or kitten) with the gavel.

TV may have you convinced that judges are a collection of easily duped dimwits, or disillusioned mavericks trying to "stick it to the man", but reality is pretty far from that. The vast majority of those who sit on the Bench are pretty dedicated to uphold both the letter and spirit of the laws.

This is not to say that discretion is not of any value - it most certainly is more important than ever. But for all the "schemes" you are bound to hear over the next little while about how to get around the law, they won't really work because the only thing that still matters is what a judge thinks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DipArse
Or what if a traveling SP sets up an incall in a hotel room and LE puts the room under surveillance. Is that room considered a “bawdy house”.

Response:
Moot. There is no longer any prostitution-related prohibition against bawdy houses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DipArse
If the police bust in and catch you having sex, is that enough to convict you, even if they don’t see or have evidence of money changing hands?

Response:
Again, depends on the circumstances.

If she is a known (advertising) prostitute... and the two of you know absolutely nothing about each other (including real names)... and you only spend a short period of time together that happens to correspond with her standard appointment durations... and you have a series of communications (even vague or ambiguous ones) about setting up an appointment... and she happens to have a wad of twenties on her (or, worse - you have sent her an email transfer at the start of the visit)....

No, it isn't as strong a case as if you were caught on camera exchanging money and then having sex (and yes, stings will be the biggest risks you will face), but in your hypothetical situation it'll all still come down to what the judge believes happened.

Oh, and one other thing to remember - the companions will be (with a couple of minor exceptions) immune from prosecution for any aspect of prostitution; however, they would certainly be open to prosecution for being dishonest to either law enforcement or the courts. I'd like to think that the best of the best would see value in protecting their clients, even if they create some risk for themselves in doing so; but I'm not sure that it's wise to assume all would....

Not trying to scare you, but the simple truth is that hobbying is now a violation of the Criminal Code. So be as careful as you feel is warranted, and as the saying goes: if you do the crime, be prepared to do the time.

My response:
Wow. This is an eye opener. I didn't realize that judges had that much power to determine what the "truth" is. I was under the impression that allegations had to be "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt". I guess I watch too much TV. Next week I'll be seeing a well reviewed traveling lady with a solid reputation. After that, I'll take a break from this hobby and watch from the sidelines and see how things develop.

 

[johnsmit]

In all those sinario there still has to be some concrete evidence presented. .ambiguous evidence which could be interpreted. In more then one way ..will not stand up in court..Judges may have discretion in thier finding on the evidence.. but any double and the judge wi usually find not guilty..
Unless the judge is on personal crusade .against ..perverted ..rapist. women abusser. .I can't see where it we be that easy to make a case when some one sees a indy escort ..In there owe residence or at z incall location..

Threating a witness. . Is still illegal in Canada..And considering that prostitution is not illegal there is no leverage they can use which is not infringing on thd escorts rights to conduct business.
It will come down to what services she admit selling..massage.theropy. .sex counseling. . Art model..

I personally will be seeing girl for photo and draw model services..totally lagitamate. ..and have done exactly that many times.

Of course it wI'll all be a wait and see..case.

..

 

[Fullhouse]

Thanks for sharing this with us, Uncled........ I have no idea who DipArse is, and it's none of my business..... and I can't argue with any of his points because I'm not a legal beagle.

But I wonder if his quoted response to bawdy houses is correct:
Response:
Moot. There is no longer any prostitution-related prohibition against bawdy houses............

but section 286.1(1) states this:

" 2- Due to the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services (section 286.1(1)), sex workers will be unable to properly screen clients, will have diminished access to police protection, and will be unable to work in safe indoor venues because it will be against the law for their clients to attend their place of business."

 

[westwoody]

Until such time as a REAL judge renders a decision speculation by posters is pointless.

As mentioned above, too many here base their knowledge on TV.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Thanks for sharing this with us, Uncled........ I have no idea who DipArse is, and it's none of my business..... and I can't argue with any of his points because I'm not a legal beagle.

But I wonder if his quoted response to bawdy houses is correct:
Response:
Moot. There is no longer any prostitution-related prohibition against bawdy houses............

but section 286.1(1) states this:

" 2- Due to the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services (section 286.1(1)), sex workers will be unable to properly screen clients, will have diminished access to police protection, and will be unable to work in safe indoor venues because it will be against the law for their clients to attend their place of business."

actually, section 286.1(1) and 286.1(2) state the following:

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of,

(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or

(ii) in any other case,

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,

(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or

(ii) in any other case,

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.


286.1 (2) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(a) for a first offence, six months; and
(b) for each subsequent offence, one year.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6767128&File=33#3

i'm not too sure what the poster i quoted is referring to

 

[hornygandalf]

My interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is that as long as the money changing hands is for some other service - massage, companionship, whatever, and the specific services offered and contracted for don't include sex, then it becomes difficult for LE to prove you were in fact paying for whatever sexual pleasures may subsequently happen. And this is where the perception of the judge becomes important. Of course, the definition of a 'sexual service' will be important. How narrowly or broadly will that be interpreted?

I am seeing some changes already with any mention of sexual services disappearing from the Amy (former Tina) stable adverts. It will make forums such as this more important than ever.

 

[Slapshot1]

Until such time as a REAL judge renders a decision speculation by posters is pointless.

As mentioned above, too many here base their knowledge on TV.

Exactly, excessive speculation of countless scenarios and how they could be handled is only creating more panic. In hearing our chief of police address this new law, he publicly deflected it straight to the courts which tells me that they already know this law won't survive. I personally know the man and the next time I see him, I'll question the departments future actions regarding the situation, so I can report something back here that is concrete, assuming he doesn't fill me with a bunch of bullshit.

 

[susi]

i just want to say that out on the prairies where some in this thread seem to be, the government and police seem to have set up some new licensing protocols and other things to accommodate the sex industry and i feel like the chance of "stings" against clients are very low.

for a couple of reason the main one being cost for such an operation and then the safety of any officers involved, for example a female officer who is playing the role of sex worker and is alone with you in a room trying to get you to pay the rate or offer money for services. that officers safety cannot be protected completely and in the past police have told me this is not a possibility.

so, while i agree its important for us to all be careful and more discreet with our interactions, i don't think we will be seeing "stings" done by police in indoor locations. onstreet of course they have been doing it for years so obviously be careful there, as i always say, if you see a gorgeous healthy 5 foot 10 blond standing on a corner and she looks too good to be true, she probably is and is likely a police officer.

the tactics of the last will still work, less overt ads, discreet discussions about fees, fees for "time" not services things like that.

please remember that police departments are overwhelmed with the calls they get for a whole lot of things and so unless there are complaints about an sp such as noise or exploitation, police attendance is unlikely.

just remember to use well known agencies and sp's and you should be fine.

i am once again sorry about this everyone, but we are still fighting and will not stop until we achieve total decriminalization and self determination.

love susie

 

[Uncled]

To Fullhouse - DipArse is my alter-ego on another review board.

To Miss Melody - Maybe I was wrong to reveal info sent to me in a PM, but I felt that the info was important enough to pass on. I did not identify who sent me the PM.

 

[Wannadance]

In my opinion C-36 is more about the Harper Government pandering to its political base to win votes than it will ever be about actual enforcement. I expect there will be about as much of an appetite among Crown prosecutors to pursue those charges based on what happens among consenting adults as there is for marijuana possession.

 

[Fullhouse]

actually, section 286.1(1) and 286.1(2) state the following:

i'm not too sure what the poster i quoted is referring to

Sorry if that information was incorrect.

I copied and pasted what I read in post #207 of the "New Articles regarding Bill C-36" thread.

A recent summary of C-36 by the Pivot Legal Society; short and to the point:
http://www.pivotlegal.org/bill_c_36_a_backgrounder

And part of what it states is this:

Bill C-36 targets sex workers, clients, and third parties in various ways and will have the following harmful effects:


1- The prohibitions on public communication (sections 213 and 286.1(1)) will result in displacement of street-based sex workers to dangerous, isolated areas where they are unable to properly screen clients and will continue to face barriers to police protection.

2- Due to the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services (section 286.1(1)), sex workers will be unable to properly screen clients, will have diminished access to police protection, and will be unable to work in safe indoor venues because it will be against the law for their clients to attend their place of business.

3- The safety of sex workers will be impacted by the amended procuring provision (section 286.3(1)), which is extremely broad and will capture many safety-enhancing relationships with third parties (such as managers, drivers, and booking agents). Third parties are also criminalized by the prohibition on materially benefitting from another person’s sex work (section 286.2(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), which captures people who are in a management role, including those who increase the safety of sex workers. In addition to being unnecessarily vague, this provision is extremely complicated, making it virtually impossible to know if a third party is captured by the law or not.

4- Sex workers’ safety will be impaired because it will be virtually impossible to work indoors when sex workers cannot promote their services. The advertising ban (section 286.4) targets newspapers, websites, magazines, and other forms of media that may carry sex industry ads, third parties who advertise other people’s sexual services, and sex workers who wish to advertise collectively.

So, if that information, particular #2, is incorrect, maybe I should find a good lawyer - and sue the Pivot Legal Society for posting wrong information on the internet.
(I wonder how that would work out???)

Heck, instead of blowing money on a lawyer, I think I'll circumvent the new law and get a nice blow job in exchange for a fist full of dollars.

 

[uncleg]

It received Royal Assent yesterday, which was the last step in the process. There is a 30 day grace period before most of it can be enforced, with a few exceptions you can read up on, in the Sticky thread. December 6/14 is the day it all comes into force.

Merry Christmas...........:canada:

 

[brown25]

so, while i agree its important for us to all be careful and more discreet with our interactions, i don't think we will be seeing "stings" done by police in indoor locations.

love susie

Thanks for being the constant Voice Of Reason here Susi!

 

[GATSBY]

I think posting PM's is against the rules?

While I'm not sure about this rule, I just want to say that you should have maybe kept the PMer's handle anonymous? There's probably a reason why he decided to PM and not just directly post here. Anyhow, thank you to both the OP and the PMer for all this information.

 

[Avery]

While I'm not sure about this rule, I just want to say that you should have maybe kept the PMer's handle anonymous?

He did keep it anonymous. He changed the PMer's handle to DipArse. There's no such handle on PERB. Surprise! Surprise!

 

[Uncled]

DipArse is his own handle on another forum and he didn't post the handle of the other person.

Hey people, sorry for the confusion that I caused. I just want to confirm I am DipArse on another forum and that I did not post the handle of the person that sent me the PM. I'll do better next time.

P.S.
I guess I really am a dip arse.

 

[screwtape1963]

Unbelievable. It boggles my mind how fast this got put through when there's been other important things that took much, much longer to pass or haven't gotten past at all.

Yeah. What's especially interesting is that the Senate Justice Committee hadn't even finished holding its hearings yet before it decided to "report back" so the Senate could hold a "considered" vote on the Bill. The last round of hearings was actually scheduled to take place in early December. In fact, on December 6 - the day when everything now goes into force - one of the organizations originally scheduled to present a submission and testify before the Senate committee was the Canadian Bar Association, providing the collective opinion of the nation's lawyers about the Bill, both positive and negative. It's almost like the Conservative Senate leadership REALLY didn't want to have that on the record, isn't it?