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.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Ruffley
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c1433 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
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