C-36 Everyone sitting on their hands witing for the first test case?

[John H. Watson M.D.]

Everyone seems to be cautious, many newspapers are not advertising escorts or even massage now. I guess everyone is waiting to see what happens when the first guy gets nabbed. I am going to stay out of trouble by going to well reviewed places and places I have previously been to. I will stick to massage for now and see what the first drag nets pull in.

Stay safe, lets be careful out there!!!!

 

[easyguy]

Hey guys and gals! You would probably again blame me for fear mongering but I used to rely in my business practice on hard facts not on the “feel good” sentiments that prevail in some discussions about new law on this board. I have my fare share of experience in civil courts but never was involved with criminal court. Thus I have several questions to correctly formulate my opinion on the whole situation.

1. In accordance to the new law can court issue subpoena for SP to testify against client?
2. What is the penalty if she refuses?
3. How SP is going to react to such subpoena? Is she prepared to commit considerable funds to any legal advice and guidance? This question is for Indies of course.
4. How agency will react if some of its girls are called to testify before court against customer? If they prepared to pay for legal help etc.?
5. Under the new legislation is the first conviction stays on the record? Is this a misdemeanor (first offense) or in certain circumstances a felony?

I would appreciate your input, especially from gals and agencies. Knowing facts is not a fear mongering, just a prudent policy as buying insurance for example.

 

[bongo]

I'm really starting to LOVE this C-36. Prices seem to be coming down and escorts are being more open offering GFE+ services. I'm actually seeing more escorts now than ever before , like its fukiin Walmart fuck fest.. Seeing one this Friday and another Sunday night. Already saw 3 hotties this past week. The cum is flying like gangbusters.

Crazy.. VIP Models for 160$, thats what I'm talkin about.

 

[easyguy]

Thank you guys you for your very comprehensive answers. This alone convinces me that situation is probably estimated correctly by the board. Thanks for your answers Patron. My questions were related to an imaginary situation when the correspondence of the agency with clients gets into the hands of LE. Imagine that the driver or booker is stopped by the traffic police (intentionally or not intentionally) and their cell phone records are seized. Can now police subpoena girls and clients listed they can reach to testify? I understand it will be very difficult for court to prove that you actually paid for sex not for the company unless a) your booking record discusses sex details explicitly and b) the girl willingly or most probably unwillingly cooperates with LE. I fully agree that probability of such a case is very, very low but the damage would be very considerable, thus prudence is required. Therefore I also fully agree that the whole booking procedure should change both with indies and agencies. Not you no agency should explicitly mention any sexual services ever. You are booking girl for a companionship period. If the sex happens it is accidental not intentional

 

[Siocnarf]

Easyguy, hopefully others will answer your detailed questions (CALLING SIOCNARF)

What, why me? I know nothing I swear.
Seriously, my understanding is that any lawyer (defense or prosecutor) can subpoena a witness and they are obligated to appear. In reality, someone else here or on TERB (I forgot) explained that prosecutors will not force a prostitute to testify against her will. Unless she's fully cooperative she probably won't say anything useful anyway and forcing a so-called victim to testify would not look good.

 

[prophetofdoom]

The Crown Prosecutor issues the supoena in the name of Her Majesty.



Contempt of court.



Canada doesn't have the misdemeanor/felony distinction that is common in the USA. We have indictable and non-indictable (summary conviction) offenses. The 286.1 offense (obtaining sexual services for consideration) is a hybrid offense. The Crown, at its discretion, may proceed by indictment under 286.1(1)(a) or by summary conviction.under 286.1(b).

I was wondering if the following immunity available to the provider would help her protect her client ... especially the clause "after the fact"

286.5
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.

 

[Siocnarf]

What this section means is that prostitutes cannot be held responsible for inducing someone to break the law. ''Accessory after the fact'' is a legal term for someone who helps a criminal avoid being arrested after his crime. So the sex worker cannot be charged for helping her client avoid the police. She can still be called to testify in court however, but it means the crown has no way to threaten her with any charges if she doesn't say what they want.

 

[UNIVAC]

All I know is that I do not want to be the test case, you will be safe if you stick to places you know.

 

[dude79]

/queue gugu to tell us its all fine and we shouldn't worry

;-)

 

[gugu]

1. In accordance to the new law can court issue subpoena for SP to testify against client?

No. They can subpoena the SP to testify, but not to testify against someone.

If they did so, I would certainly not await from the SP that she commits perjury. That could turn against her.

But, of course, there is no reason to worry. LE does not intend to go after the clients on the unique ground that they are clients.

 

[simonpaul]

No. They can subpoena the SP to testify, but not to testify against someone.

If they did so, I would certainly not await from the SP that she commits perjury. That could turn against her.

But, of course, there is no reason to worry. LE does not intend to go after the clients on the unique ground that they are clients.

I totally agree nothing will change in the next prévisble future except for massage parlors.

 

[Vuko]

All I know is that I do not want to be the test case, you will be safe if you stick to places you know.

Sorry, but I fail to see how sticking to the places I know make me safer.

 

[gugu]

except for massage parlors.

What makes you think that LE would want to go after the places where sex workers are provided with the safest working environment?

 

[simonpaul]

What makes you think that LE would want to go after the places where sex workers are provided with the safest working environment?

It is easier for LE to find those places,i don't think they can go in an hotel room legally rent just to find an Sp unless they have receive an information.

 

[gugu]

Well, simonpaul, it was just the same before C-36. You were not allowed to be present in a bawdy house before C-36.

 

[sigma69]

What this section means is that prostitutes cannot be held responsible for inducing someone to break the law. ''Accessory after the fact'' is a legal term for someone who helps a criminal avoid being arrested after his crime. So the sex worker cannot be charged for helping her client avoid the police. She can still be called to testify in court however, but it means the crown has no way to threaten her with any charges if she doesn't say what they want.

Good point.
Prosecutors usually like to know precisely what their witness(es) will say. In the very hypothetical case we are discussing (SP called to testify against a client), the prosecutor would probably want to have a way to force the SP to testify along the lines of the prosecution's argument. In criminal cases, this usually means having pending charges against the witness with a prior arrangement to favorably dispose of those charges - if the witness delivers the agreed upon testimony.

 

[gugu]

There would be ways to coerce in that case sigma, the threat to disturb her business: threatening the owner of her apartment of living off the avails so he throws her out; systematically going after her client and the likes. But the question is: what is the case we are talking about? A simple guy paying for sex? Apply a cost benefit analysis to that and ask the Vérificateur général to comment.

 

[simonpaul]

There would be ways to coerce in that case sigma, the threat to disturb her business: threatening the owner of her apartment of living off the avails so he throws her out; systematically going after her client and the likes. But the question is: what is the case we are talking about? A simple guy paying for sex? Apply a cost benefit analysis to that and ask the Vérificateur général to comment.

je vais écrire en francais,si quelqu'un une maitresse et va a l'holtel avec ellle,d'apres ce que je comprends il va etre aussi coupable face a C-36,c'est completement fou,le sexe restera toujours une affaire de concentement entre deux adultes concentents,SP Ou Maitresse.

 

[sigma69]

That is precisely my point, gugu. I think it is very unlikely that all the facts of a case will align well enough to make it worthwhile to (try to) have a SP testify against her client. So, if a client ever gets dragged in court it will be because there are many aggravating facts that just paying for sex.

 

[Siocnarf]

There would be ways to coerce in that case sigma, the threat to disturb her business: threatening the owner of her apartment of living off the avails so he throws her out; systematically going after her client and the likes.

However, my opinion is that it would be illegal and unethical to do this. In the present case we are talking about threatening someone who is just an innocent witness according to the law. It is different when they make a deal with a real criminal to get some bigger fish; that is an acceptable offer. Also, it is clear according to the law that a landlord is not criminal, unless he is involved in her business more directly.