England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Baker & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 274 (07 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/274.html
Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 274, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 74, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 74

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Crim 274
		No: 200705665 A3; 200705823 A3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL

7th February 2008

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM
(Vice President of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
MR JUSTICE FIELD
SIR PETER CRESSWELL
____________________

	R E G I N A
	v
	KENNETH BAKER
	JOHN IVOR GRIFFITHS

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Mr R Pardoe appeared on behalf of Baker
Mr B McKenna appeared on behalf of Griffiths
Mr R Rowlands appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

MR JUSTICE FIELD: On 25th May 2007 in the Crown Court at Mold these appellants, Kenneth Baker (aged 57) and Ivor Griffiths (aged 52), changed their pleas to guilty to two counts of keeping a brothel used for prostitution (counts 1 and 2). On 12th October 2007 His Honour Judge Hughes QC sentenced Baker on each of the two counts to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent and Griffiths to eight months' imprisonment on count 1 and ten months' imprisonment on count 2, those sentences to be concurrent.

The appellants appeal against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The facts can be shortly summarised. The case involved an investigation between July 2005 and April 2006 into three brothels in Colwyn Bay, Penmaenmawr and Rhuddlan respectively. Each of the co-accused, the two appellants and a woman named Lam, had a different role in the operation. Baker would rent premises, pay for advertising, buy a substantial amount of condoms and would visit the premises on a regular basis to check on his investment. He would charge approximately double the market rent for each property. Griffiths initially got paid for carrying out tasks for Baker, such as picking up the girls from train stations and taking them to the premises. However, he eventually took over the Rhuddlan premises. Lam was the person initially working on the ground. She had contacts in London and placed advertisements in Chinese for girls to come to work. Typically the girls would work for a few weeks. Later, Lam operated the premises at Colwyn Bay.

Count 1 related to the brothel in Penmaenmawr. Those premises were rented in July 2005 by Baker, who paid the council tax and utility bills on the property. As soon as the tenancy had been taken out, adverts paid for by Baker were placed in newspapers for Oriental massage. Over a period of ten months the advertisements cost in excess of £3,000. After a complaint was made by a member of the public the premises were kept under surveillance by police, who noted the number of men attending the address. The customers paid £60 for half an hour or £100 for an hour for sexual services. Undercover officers attended the house and were quoted the same rates. On 25th April 2006 the police raided the premises and found paraphernalia indicating that the house was being used as a brothel.

Count 2 related to the Rhuddlan premises. These were rented in January 2006 by Baker, who again was responsible for the council tax on the property. Towards the end of March 2006 rumours began to spread locally about the house and police decided to keep observations on it. An undercover officer paid a visit and was quoted £60 and £100 for sexual services. This property too was raided by the police on 25th April.

The Colwyn Bay brothel was the subject of count 3. That was specific to Lam, who is not an appellant.

Baker was a man of previous good character. Griffiths had had three previous court appearances for three offences between May 1982 and September 1985. These included theft and obtaining property by deception.

When passing sentence, the learned judge observed that Baker was involved in a commercial activity and, although he left others to handle the day-to-day business, he was generally managing the operation. He was in the most serious position. The judge accepted it was a relatively unsophisticated enterprise. He noted Baker's previous good character and gave him some credit for his plea of guilty, although it had been entered on the morning of his trial.

The judge recorded that Griffiths was Baker's assistant and had then taken over the running of the premises at Rhuddlan. However, it was noted that those premises were short-lived and unsuccessful. Griffiths had no relevant previous convictions and the judge gave him credit for his pleas of guilty, but observed that his activity had been more than minimal.

The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants overlapped. Both relied, first, on the fact that there was no coercion or corruption - the women who worked in these establishments were professional prostitutes; second, the fact that the operation was unsophisticated and relatively on a small scale; and, third, the contention that the sentences passed were not in accord with the guideline laid down by the Sentencing Guidelines Council for keeping a brothel used for prostitution.

In his submissions, Mr Pardoe, on behalf of Baker, referred us to a number of authorities. It is appropriate to refer to three of them. In R v Rousseau [2002] EWCA Crim 1252, the appellant was sentenced to nine months on his guilty plea for living off immoral earnings. He was also given a two month consecutive sentence for failing to answer to his bail. The appellant had been running a brothel in which he was deeply involved. He had no relevant previous convictions. This court reduced the nine month sentence to one of four months.

In R v Chen [2007] EWCA Crim 1791, the appellant, on a guilty plea, had been sentenced to 18 months for keeping a brothel. She had started as a prostitute in the premises and had then managed them for the owner, accounting to him for the profits. In reducing that sentence to one of four months, this court observed that where coercion or corruption was lacking the sentence will normally not exceed a few months.

In R v Bao [2007] EWCA Crim 2781, the appellant ran a small brothel in conjunction with a hairdressing saloon and there was no evidence of coercion or corruption. The profit made from both businesses exceeded £200,000 but it was not possible to say how much of this was attributable to the brothel. On the day set for trial the appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months. She had a previous conviction in 2005 for keeping a brothel. This court reduced that sentence to 12 months.

It is noticeable that when dealing with the offence of exploitation of prostitution, the Sentencing Guidelines Council says:

"The degree of coercion, both in terms of recruitment and subsequent control of the prostitutes' activities, is highly relevant to sentencing."

In our judgment, the sentences passed on these two appellants were manifestly excessive, bearing in mind in particular the absence of any coercion or corruption, their guilty pleas, the unsophisticated nature of the operation and its relatively small scale.

In Baker's case we quash the sentences imposed by the learned judge and impose in their place concurrent sentences of nine months. In Griffiths' case we substitute for the sentences passed a sentence of four months on count 1 and five months on count 2. To that extent and for the reasons we have given these appeals are allowed.