Trial on brothel charge

Press, 20 August 1983, Page 5

Trial on brothel charge

A woman undercover detective who, as part of her police duties, telephoned an escort agency which had advertised for staff, was told by a man who then interviewed her that she could easily make $l4OO to $l5OO a week and that the job entailed more than just massages. Evidence of this was given by the police officer during the preliminary hearing of depositions of evidence yesterday against the man on a charge of keeping a brothel in the city on June 4. The defendent was committed for trial by jury in the District Court, by Messrs R. M. Naysmith and C. W. Crawford, Justices of the Peace.

He was remanded on bail to September 2, pending a date for trial.

He was granted interim suppression of his name and the names of witnesses were also suppressed. Sergeant G. G. Cleland prosecuted. Mr D. C. Fitzgibbon, who appeared for the defendant, reserved his defence. The woman detective told of being interviewed by the defendant on June 1. He asked her what she thought the job entailed and she said she thought it was an escort agency and she would be required to go out in evenings and perform massages. He told her that that was not what was required, and that men telephoned wanting a female to go to bed with them, and he would send one out. /He asked her if she would be prepared to take her clothes off; 50 per cent of girls did take their clothes off. He asked her to take her clothes off and said he would not buy a Porsche without first looking at the motor. The detective told him if she was going to work for him it was going to be on a

business basis, and not a personal one. He asked her to walk around the room so he could see her figure, and told her she would have no trouble making money. The defendant said he had one girl working for him who earned $l4OO to $l5OO a week. The defendant answered a telephone call. The caller was obviously a person wanting a female for the afternoon. The defendant looked at her and she took it to mean he wanted her to go to this person. He told the caller that it would cost him $2O up front and $6O for the girl, negotiable — depending on the services he required. After a further interview the witness arranged to start work later in the week. A woman constable said she called the telephone number in May and was then interviewed by the defendant. He told her he wanted a masseuse. She could earn about $l2O an hour but he would take 50 per cent. He expected her to have

full sex with the clients if they asked for it. He asked the constable to undress and said it was like buying a car. He liked to know what he was getting. She kept stalling him. She later telephoned the defendant and said she was interested in the job, beginning the following week. He wanted her to start that evening but she declined. Another woman also gave evidence of applying to a telephone number and then being interviewed by the defendant. She asked what was involved and he said it was up to her for extras.

The defendant told her that her payment would be $6O an escort. She was to charge $BO, with $2O being paid to him. It was up to her if she supplied sex but “it was $BO up front first.” On the evening of June 4 the defendant told her there was an escort at a local hotel. She met one of the other girls and they went to the hotel and met another woman and went to a hotel room. She telephoned the defendant to say they had arrived. There were three men in the room. She went with one to a room and offered to have sex with him. Soon afterwards another man came in and identified himself as a police officer. She only went to work for the defendant because she needed the money, the witness said. Police officers, including detectives from Dunedin and Invercargill, gave evidence of being assigned to go to a hotel and arrange for three female escorts to be sent. The escort service was

telephoned and two women arrived, and met with the officers. Each woman then went into a separate room with an officer. Another officer later entered the rooms and introduced himself as a detective. The defendant’s premises were then searched and a piece of paper found on a desk at which he / was seated. It had personal details of a woman with whom the defendant had just spoken, and comments on it included “extras okay.” Interviewed by a detective, the defendant said the escort service was his business. He denied that it was a brothel in which men could arrange sex with Is escorts. Asked if he knew sex took place with his escorts he said it had nothing to do with him. He guessed it took place but he did not encourage the girls to have sex. He had told them when he interviewed them that sex was not allowed. Under cross-examination, the detective said he did not form the impression at the time that the defendant might have been taking medicine in addition to alcohol. Subsequently, he became aware that the defendant was on a prescription for valium. To a certain extent he was concerned about the defendant’s mental health, and this concern grew as he dwelt on the matter over the next couple of days. He considered the defendant had a problem at the time, be it a nervous breakdown or whatever.