Baker & Anor, R v

In sentencing for keeping a brothel used for prostitution, the degree of coercion in recruiting and controlling the prostitutes is highly relevant. The absence of coercion or corruption, guilty pleas, and an operation’s unsophisticated and relatively small-scale character may together make an immediate custodial sentence manifestly excessive. Sentences must reflect the offender’s respective role and level of management within the enterprise.

The appellants pleaded guilty at Mold Crown Court to two counts of keeping a brothel used for prostitution. Baker rented premises, paid expenses and advertising, and supervised his investment. Griffiths assisted Baker and later ran one of the premises.

Judge Hughes QC sentenced Baker to concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment. Griffiths received concurrent terms of eight and ten months’ imprisonment. Both appealed with leave of the single judge, contending that the sentences did not properly reflect the absence of coercion or corruption, the limited and unsophisticated operation, their guilty pleas, and the applicable sentencing guideline.

1. The appeals were allowed. The sentences were manifestly excessive in the circumstances identified by the court.

2. The court noted the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s indication that, for exploitation of prostitution, the degree of coercion in both recruitment and subsequent control is highly relevant to sentence. There was no coercion or corruption in this case. The women were professional prostitutes.

3. The absence of coercion or corruption had to be assessed with the appellants’ guilty pleas and the nature of the enterprise. The operation was relatively small-scale and unsophisticated. Although Baker had the more serious role because he funded and generally managed the operation, he left the day-to-day business to others. Griffiths’ role was more than minimal, but the premises he took over were short-lived and unsuccessful.

4. Accordingly, the court quashed Baker’s concurrent 18-month sentences and substituted concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment. It substituted sentences of four months on count 1 and five months on count 2 for Griffiths, to run concurrently.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2008] EWCA Crim 274, allowed both appeals against sentence and substituted reduced concurrent custodial terms.

• Crown Court at Mold On 12 October 2007, Judge Hughes QC imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment on Baker and concurrent sentences of eight and ten months’ imprisonment on Griffiths.