Chch massage parlour offence

Press, 9 May 1985, Page 15

Chch massage parlour offence

An Auckland undercover constable gave evidence in the District Court yesterday of having made 25 or 26 visits to massage parlours in Christchurch in mid-1984 while on special duties which 'included the apprehension of masseuses for alleged soliciting offences.

His evidence was given when a former masseuse faced charges of managing a brothel, and offering herself for prostitution, last August 9, and possessing cannabis on August 14. The woman, who was granted suppression of her name by Judge Paterson, was convicted on the charge of soliciting, but the charge of managing a brothel was dismissed at the completion of prosecution evidence. The Judge, dismissing that charge, upheld submissions by defence counsel, Mr G. E. Langham, that there was no case to answer to the charge. On the charges of soliciting, and possessing cannabis, the defendant was

remanded at large to June 11 for sentence. The defendant admitted the drug offence but denied the other two charges. Sergeant Jack Claridge prosecuted. Prosecution evidence was that the undercover constable went to a massage parlour and was attended by the defendant. He asked for a half-hour massage, costing $2O. During the massage she had asked him if there were any other services he would like. He said he took this to mean sex, and asked her the cost. The constable said the defendant quoted a body massage for $3O. He asked her how much for sex and she replied she did not do that. He told her he did not want the massage, and left the parlour. Cross-examined, the constable said he took the defendant’s reply of $3O to be additional for the massage, on what he had already paid for the half-hour massage.

He said the defendant had not mentioned the words

when describing what the body massage involved but there could be- “no other suggestion you could take from her motionings, other than masturbation.” Detective M. W. Manson said that when interviewed on August 14, the defendant denied she had offered the undercover constable a form of sexual act and said the constable had not understood what she was talking about. Other evidence was that the defendant managed the massage parlour on Friday evenings. The incident complained of occurred on a Thursday afternoon. During a police search of the defendant’s house when she was questioned about the massage parlour matter, a small quantity of cannabis was found.

The Judge dismissed the charge of managing a brothel, after prosecution evidence had been completed. He upheld Mr Langham’s submission that there was no case to answer to this charge. In evidence on the charge of soliciting, the defendant said that during the massage the constable asked her if she performed any extra services. She told him the only extra was an hour’s body massage for $3O.

He asked if she did sex and she replied that she did not. He asked why and she said for personal reasons. He did not reply but gave a grunt, the defendant said.

He then asked about the body massage and she said this was an hour’s massage for $3O. She had meant an extra $lO on the half-hour massage. She said she did not offer any sort of sexual act to the constable.

The Judge, holding the soliciting charge proved, said that he was satisfied the defendant’s comments made during the massage, and noted shortly after by the constable, amounted to an offer of prostitution.