Toronto Escorts

Defence lawyer argues prostitution sting against 27 Nova Scotia men was abuse of.....

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,152
2,603
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifa...against-men-abuse-of-process-says-lawyer.html


Charging 27 Cape Breton men with obtaining sexual services is nothing more than an abuse of process by police, according to one defence lawyer who contends the charge against his client should be stayed.

Lawyer TJ McKeough said a sting operation by Cape Breton Regional Police last fall — dubbed John Be Gone — undermines society's sense of decency and fair play when it comes to criminal prosecution.

"It is clear that this was a fishing expedition by the police in which they provided the opportunity for members of the public to commit an offence in an effort to address an isolated problem they had previously failed to correct when addressed head on," said McKeough.

Between last August and September, female undercover officers posed as prostitutes and strolled along Charlotte Street in Sydney. A total of 27 men from across the island were eventually charged with a new offence in the Criminal Code of communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.

Some of the accused have already entered guilty pleas and were issued fines. Several others have entered not guilty pleas and were assigned trial dates.

McKeough has filed a challenge to the charge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a provincial court judge is expected to hear the argument in May.

In his brief filed with the court, McKeough said the release of the names of the individuals charged by police during a press conference amounted to a public shaming which he said is akin to locking someone in stocks in the town square.

"It is completely inappropriate for a police service to induce the commission of crimes, charge individuals, publicly shame them and then leave it to the court system to sort through the fall out," argues McKeough.


He pointed out there is no evidence his client was previously seen obtaining or trying to secure sexual services prior to his arrest or that he was actively being watched by police.

"This case is simply about protecting the integrity of the justice system," said McKeough, adding his client was used as pawn by police to show the public it was making progress on concerns expressed about prostitution in the downtown.

McKeough said if prostitution was such a problem, the police would have been able to charge individuals by conducting surveillance like other police operations particularly those associated with the illegal drug trade.

"The police had to take the additional steps of providing an opportunity and inducing the commission of an offence," argues McKeough.
"There must be a clear message sent to law enforcement from the court that it is not acceptable to lure a group of citizens into committing illegal acts and then to seek to prosecute them for the sole purpose of displaying false progress on social issues to the public," concludes McKeough.
 

Terminator2000

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
3,375
102
63
I'm very hopeful it does but that's all we can do. I doubt it will. The lawyer will get his client off, therefore no need to reach the supreme court.
if this case doesnt go to supreme court and the guy gets off due to entrapment being proven. couldnt someone else use this case in supreme court to challenge c36
 

Scarey

Well-known member
I believe this will be the beginning of a court challenge.If he gets his client off on that argument it's sets precedent, if not, it will probably go to a higher court.It is a valid arguement.
 

RNYqbrLx

Member
Sep 25, 2004
250
3
18
So simply communicating with an SP is an offence? So if I ask an SP in text or email, hey are you free this evening, ok what time and place, without discussing money or sex. That alone is an offence now?
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
18
0
Between last August and September, female undercover officers posed as prostitutes and strolled along Charlotte Street in Sydney. A total of 27 men from across the island were eventually charged with a new offence in the Criminal Code of communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining sexual services.
.
Good use of the bill

street walking should be stopped but I do agree that entrapment encourages someone to break the law when they would not have otherwise and disclosing names to the press is BS

women should not be afraid to walk down the street
Some of the accused have already entered guilty pleas and were issued fines.
not much of a penalty, I thought it was a criminal offence, so the cops have the latitude not to lay a criminal charge?
 
Last edited:

CANTO

Member
Aug 13, 2012
140
4
18
not much of a penalty, I thought it was a criminal offence, so the cops have the latitude not to lay a criminal charge?
These guys still got charged with a criminal offence and despite only having to pay a fine they will still be stuck with having a criminal record. Judges have a lot of discretion in handing down sentences and in this case I think the defendants were only given a slap on the wrist because they had clean records and they agreed to plead guilty. Still being named in the local paper and having this conviction on their permanent records has got to suck for these guys.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Good use of the bill

street walking should be stopped but I do agree that entrapment encourages someone to break the law when they would not have otherwise and disclosing names to the press is BS

women should not be afraid to walk down the street

not much of a penalty, I thought it was a criminal offence, so the cops have the latitude not to lay a criminal charge?
It's not as if 'communicating' in a public place wasn't already a crime and had been a crime for decades. This wasn't a case of the new law criminalizing an innocuous behaviour. Using the public streets as the venue for your commercial sex transactions has always been objectionable.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,355
9
38
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case. I like that lawyer's arguments.

Doesn't look like the cops can even benefit from the immunity provisions of Sec. 285.6 (2). (If the objective is to protect such women in the trade, then it should not apply to even female cops posing as prostitutes, I would think).

Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
True , but there was the supreme court ruling in 2013 making ban on public communication unconstitutional , the conservatives just re-wrote it
And until it too is ruled unconstitutional it is the law of the land, just as the previous more tightly defined provision once was.

As to that restriction, the argument was that the old law allowed sex-workers no legal alternative venues for their legal trade, and thus was an unconstitutional restriction of their freedom. There was no specific finding that the restriction on communication (public or private) was unconstitutional.

There has never been any sort of freedom of criminal speech, so I'd imagine the Cons thinking was that making the purchase of sex a crime would cover any constitutional issues around communicating.

In any case, the underlying fact that societies have always controlled and restricted street commerce remains. Whether you're selling handbags or handjobs, sacks or sex, you can't buy or sell —or do anything much — on the streets without the forces of public order telling you how. Or how not.

Too bad for the guys who learned that lesson too late.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,355
9
38
probably this provision could be struck down by courts ?
I doubt it since it seems to protect SPs from being prosecuted by clients/LE, unless they were not genuinely offering or providing their own sexual services (from coercion, etc.?)

I don't think that provision was meant to protect LE.
 

Mable

Active member
Sep 20, 2004
1,379
11
38
I guess I am a more than a little confused. It was the law for many years that a public communication for the purposes off obtaining the services of a prostitute was a crime. Under cover cops have long posed as hookers and arrested many johns. Dr. Wilbert Keon was caught this way. Not sure what the lawyers argument is all about. The article is unclear.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The new law also re-wrote the previous prohibition on indoor sex ( bawdy house), they just renamed profiteering in the context of commercial entreprise offering sexual services. So sex-workers aren't allowed a legal alternative venue for their trade under the new law
However, the new law 'corrected' the flaw in the older statute by making the purchase and thus the commercial trade in sex illegal. It will be for the Courts to decide if this in or isn't unconstitutional.

While criminal penalties certainly can be disproportionate to the public nuisance they are intended to suppress, one simple fact has been true for centuries: conducting sex-trade on the streets will get you in trouble. As it did. The laws may need improvement still, but no more than the apparent misjudgement and anti-social attitudes of those arrested.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
And by the way, let's say someone is selling hot dogs in the street without licence. Would customers get tickets for purchasing unlicensed hot dogs, while the seller is left alone ?
It sure would cut into the customer base; perhaps it would be worth a try if hot-dog carts were being such an extreme nuisance and other methods of control weren't working. I can't think of a reason why such a customer-focussed law could not be enacted. But don't ask me about your idea of leaving the seller alone; it's your hypothetical, you explain it.

Although with effort one might imagine sausages being involved made it somehow a parallel to sex, handing over a lukewarm weinie in a bun seems to me qualitatively different from selling sexual access to your person and body. In any case, that choice of who to penalize in the effort to control any trade is for the lawmakers we elect to carry out our wishes, and support our preferences and prejudices. Since that 'we' includes those dumb or desperate enough to get arrested for this long-established offence, then we have to expect the pols 'we' elect to include a few equally stupid and thoughtless. We get the laws we deserve; guess how we make them better.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Drugs use is illegal however the courts ruled that drugs users should be allowed to have access to safe injection sites.
Actually there is no law (nor has there been) making drug use illegal. The standard offences are possession, trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking. If all you did was use the drug there's nothing to charge you with.

But the analogy with C-36 fails anyway. Bawdy-houses were always illegal, though commercial sex acts were not. There never was a law specifically criminalizing drug-taking premises, though the inmates who could be proven to have had or still had drugs could be charged. Until the advent of such safe-houses, drug-users often felt safer staying on the move than holding and using at a known address. Gosh! Much like sex-workers pre-Bedford.

The practical mechanisms — bust the houses and you'll have the nuisance and danger scaring the horses out on the streets — are the same in both cases, but the difference is that sex-houses were/are specifically criminal and unlike drug-houses.

In Bedford the Supremes ruled her rights were violated by that restriction and struck down the law. Though not criminal, injection sites could have been variously harassed by local authorities and their police, but were 'licensed' by Health Canada. When the new Harper government told them to rescind permission, various courts ruled that Health Canada hadn't shown cause for closing them, according to their own rules and procedures.

Like the bawdyhouse prohibition, when prostitution itself was not a crime, there's definitely something two-faced and self-defeating about illegal drugs being used in safe sites. The obvious answer is to stop using criminal law to adjust social behaviour to your liking.

Tell that to Harper and his crowd, and remind the new government that sensible people do not ban what the their voters do, but regulate it so that it is done safely and in the common interest of all. Until then the courts will continue to point out the contradictions in the inept laws that attempt to define such stupid bans.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
How can you use drugs without possessing it ? for Just having drugs in your hands, you can be convicted for posession
You seem to want to address the laws as you think they should be; what they are is what we must contend with. The offence is possession. You take/use as much or as many illegal drugs as you want without breaking any law (don't drive though), but you gotta be sure you leave no evidence that proves you did possess them. Apart from driving offences, police cannot 'search' your blood or breath without a warrant.

Answer to Q1: If my sweetie breathes me full of ganja smoke after toking on someone's joint being passed at a party how did either of us 'possess' the cannabis we most certainly used?

Answer to Q2: Right on! Whether it was your purchase or you got caught holding for a friend, or you just wanted samples for analysis and never used any drugs, not even coffee. Presumably the lawmakers thinking was if no one possessed drugs, there'd be no drugs to use. You'd have to ask them, which would be the moment for the laws as they should be.
 

buttercup

Active member
Feb 28, 2005
2,569
4
38
CCC S.286.3(1): Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration, or . recruits a person who offers . . ., or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is . liable to imprisonment . of . 14 years.

The policewoman who is offered as bait is immune from conviction -- but the actions of the superior officer who asked her to act the part fall foul of every word of this section.

The fact that the 'services' were not actually provided (I assume they were not!) does not excuse the officer. The fact that the policewoman did not object to, or even volunteered for, the assignment, does not excuse the officer.

Why are those officers not facing prosecution?
 
CCC S.286.3(1): Why are those officers not facing prosecution?
I assume as in the U.S. cops can break the law to enforce the law. i.e. pretend to be drug dealers ...or prostitutes to be solicited.

The drug use vs. possession is of interest.

On the prostitution sting....

I have been trying to read all the updates on the "ready" ? thread etc. getting up to date for my next journey North. It seems the street sting case from a good discussion here is not an ideal case to challenge C-36. From what I understand there hasn't been any in private consenting adult customer soliciting prostitute charge, at least, I have heard of charged that was not street or child related.

I assume the more than a year ago long statement from the Toronto Police Chief still stands. I thought it was great with enforcement being about safety and harm reduction, "real" trafficking and underage. Vancouver PD just had a similar statement (repeated from earlier I believe on another thread). I believe Edmonton PD is more aggressive from reading recall but not sure if any private consenting adult criminal charges have been laid. Hopefully, if there is a good case (not from streets) hopefully some sexwork positive groups or lawyers will challenge C-36.

I am amazed on the number of underage (is it under 18 in Canada?) alleged with real "sex trafficking" "pimps" that at least seem real.

I compare that to the U.S. where probably 95% of all arrests are consenting adults but always using the excuse its to save children and prevent "human trafficking" aka "sex trafficking." The problem in the U.S (in most states including AZ) is a driver boyfriend of an escort, or a phone helper is a "human trafficker" even if her husband and they dearly love each other and support the work. We even have a case of an escort sex positive advocate sentenced to 5 years in prison (in Alaska) for "trafficking" herself because she placed an ad! In Phoenix the husband of an escort who drove her to appts also for security was arrested, car torn about and thrown to the ground being told he was a "pimp."

When I read all the "trafficking" cases of underaged in Canada my first reaction was "yah sure" But perhaps in Canada these are real abuse cases not our pretend you're a victim cases. We had a Project Rose where if arrested you had the choice; admit your a victim and go through Catholic Charities rehab program to save you from the life of prostitution or go to jail. I know escorts that refused to play the game and choose jail over being their manufactured victim for the sake of grant money etc.

If the Canadian sex trafficking cases are real - either underage or forced real pimp, at least, Canada is finding real victims vs. pretend. If in the U.S. it is simply easier to go after pretend victims than to find the real ones and drive up arrest data to get more public outrage and the massive grants from the victim industry (Hunt Sisters, Disney, Ms. McCain in AZ, etc.).
 
Actually exactly the same thing happens in countries where they crimilize gays, gays who have sex with other consenting adult gays are arrested using the excuse of saving children from gays who sexually abuse little kids
Yep, Good point! We just had the big "rentboy" bust. "boy" has a different meaning I understand in the gay slang. There were no underage involved and the website has provided a safe place for gay escorts and customers for 20+ years. The gay community had mass protests and charges against all but the CEO got dropped (although could be refiled). This dropping of charges against others never happens in hetero cases. Massive criminal enterprise busts with SWAT teams breaking down doors etc. i.e. Phoenix Goddess Temple (all consenting adults doing Tantra stuff) raid with 40 who faced up to 70 years in prison if didn't take felony plea deals for probation but a felony record).

I am totally gay/les/tran suppotive but when for the most part GLBT groups have not supported decrim at least in the U.S. they are rarely targeted vs heterosexual sexwork. Cops being mostly straight have more fun busting sexy women.
 
Toronto Escorts