Masseuses fined for prostitution offers

Press, 11 March 1983, Page 4

Masseuses fined for prostitution offers

Two former masseuses at two separate city massage parlours, who gave massages to an undercover constable during a police operation on the night of December 8-9 last year were each convicted' and fined $75 after being found guilty of a charge against each of offering herself for prostitution in a public place, a massage parlour. The two defendants were convicted after separate defended hearings before Judge Frampton. He granted suppression of name to each defendant. One former masseuse, aged 22, and now unemployed was convicted of offering herself for prostitution in a massage parlour about 9.30 p.m. on December 8. The undercover constable gave evidence that he had paid $l5 for a half-hour massage. He asked her if she did "extras” and she said these were done, and quoted prices. “She said it in a way that meant I could have it there and then," the constable said. He told her he did not have

enough money with him. The constable then asked about the week-end but the defendant said she only worked Wednesday nights. The defendant qoiited then gave him a telephone number and granted an increased price if she was called out. Her counsel Dr W. G. G. A. Young called no defence evidence but submitted that the defendant's answer to the constable's questions, in general discussion, about the availability of sex, did not constitute an offering of her body for prostitution. He said her comments were no more than advising what were the practices at the massage parlour. He submitted also that the massage room where the conversation took place did not constitute a public place because of the provision for locking and bolting the room during the massage. The Judge held that the defendant had made an offer to the constable and also that it was in a public place, as defined under the relevant provision of the Summary Offences Act. He said it would be taking

an artificial and strained view of the act to hold that premises were a public place but that a particular room to which the defendant and a member of the public retired was taken out of this definition for the period of the massage. The Judge made a final order for suppression of name following defence submissions. and a supporting pyschiatrist’s letter, in reference to her mother's health. The constable gave evidence in the other prosecution, of having paid $2O for a massage, given by the defendant at a massage parlour at 12.15 a.m. on December 9. He said the defendant asked if he wanted anything else and when he asked what she meant she quoted prices for sex. He declined, saying he did not have enough money. The Judge rejected evidence given by the defendant that the constable had massaged her because she was tired. She had also denied mentioning sexual favours, and prices for these. The Judge convicted the girl on the charge of offering

herself for prostitution, but said he accepted submissions by her counsel (Mr M. J. Glue), that there was insufficient evidence to convict on a second related charge. This charge was of accepting employment as a masseuse by the holder of a massage parlour licence, when she was aged under 18 years. Evidence had been that she had told a detective investigating the other charge that she was 17. She said in evidene her age was 18. No further inquiries had been made by the police about her age. Mr Glue submitted in mitigration of penalty on the first charge that the defendant had no previous convictions. and had worked only four nights as a masseuse, and had no previous acquaintance with this “rather sordid industry." She was no longer employed as a masseuse. The Judge accepted Mr Glue’s submissions for suppression of her name. Sergeant L. F. Corbett prosecuted in both cases.