Proceeding contribution from David Ruffley (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.
Policing and Crime Bill
My hon. Friend anticipates me, and his points are well made. That is why we see merit in the proposal in new clause 25 for a "know or ought to know" test instead of a strict liability test, which would mean that it would be an offence only if the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the prostitute was controlled for gain. That will ensure that strict liability does not apply and it also deals with the issue of parity, to which my hon. Friend referred. The offence would require actual knowledge of or recklessness in respect of the circumstances; the person who should have known should be presumed to have had knowledge.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 492 c1433
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Databases Crimes of violence ICT Genetics Human trafficking Injunctions Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Offences against children Prostitution Sexual offences Sex establishments
- Legislation
- Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:40:25 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560301
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560301
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560301