Putting ‘Sex for Rent’ Arrangements to Bed
Intro
Prostitution comes in many forms. It conjures up many stereotypical images and associations, both about those who are selling sex, and those who are buying. Pushing through the stereotypes is a newer form of prostitution, that has been propagating for some years. These are ‘sex for rent’ arrangements.
Sex for rent arrangements have come into the legal limelight as a result of the first prosecution of its kind. It is the purpose of this article to review that landmark case, R v Cox, but also the legislative framework and legislature’s position on this aspect of prostitution.
What are ‘Sex for Rent’ Arrangements
Sex for rent arrangements are just that. While each arrangement may have its unique conditions, the bases of all the arrangements remain largely the same.
An individual posts an advertisement, usually on Craigslist or a similar forum, seeking a live-in companion at reduced or no rent, among other ‘perks’, in exchange for the provision of sexual services.
On the one hand, this may seem like a perfectly permissible arrangement between two consenting adults, irrespective of your thoughts on exchanging sex for discounted rent. However, the legislature has taken pains to protect consent. The law is there to protect the vulnerable, and as such the law does not discriminate between those who have a truly free choice to consent and those who by their personal circumstances are particularly exposed to exploitation, including by these arrangements.
Current Legislative Framework
Consent
Consent is the cornerstone of our legislation around sexual offences. It has a very clear definition under section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (‘the Act’):
A person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
Sex for Rent
There is currently no Act of Parliament that criminalises ‘sex for rent’, which may explain why, for so long, there were no prosecutions of this particular conduct.
What does exist in the legislation is the criminalisation of Causing or Inciting Prostitution for Gain under section 52 of the Act:
A person commits an offence if—
- he intentionally causes or incites another person to become a prostitute in any part of the world, and
- he does so for or in the expectation of gain for himself or a third person.
A number of definitions are provided for in section 54 of the Act:
- In sections 52, 53 and 53A, “gain” means:
- Any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount; or
- The goodwill of any person which is or appears likely, in time, to bring financial advantage.
- In sections 51A, 52, 53 and 53A “prostitute” means a person (A) who, on at least one occasion and whether or not compelled to do so, offers or provides sexual services to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment to A or a third person; and “prostitution” is to be interpreted accordingly.
- In subsection (2) and section 53A, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay, or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.
Parliament’s position on Sex for Rent
In the absence of any new legislation to provide specifically for sex for rent arrangements, Parliament’s intention can only be inferred from the Home Office review, and Parliamentary debates on the matter.
In a 2000 Home Office review, Setting the Boundaries, it was clear that exploitation should form a basis of any new laws in relation to controlling prostitutes.
Sex for Rent was first debated in Parliament on 18 November 2018. Numerous MPs raised concerns at the growing number of sex for rent adverts and arrangements, and the lack of prosecution of them. Those debating the topic called for more stringent definitions of sex for rent, and more enforcement of the current or the hoped-for amended law. The matter was debated again on 28 November 2018 in which the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, Nick Hurd MP, unequivocally addressed that sex for rent arrangements were illegal:
“Let me place on record the Government’s specific position on the offence… Offering accommodation in return for sex is illegal and those who do it can face up to seven years in prison…. Under sections 52-54 of the Act, an offence is committed when a person offers accommodation in return for sex, as they are inciting another person to have sex with them in return for payment. Section 52 prohibits causing or inciting prostitution for gain, and section 53 prohibits controlling prostitution for gain. I should make it clear that we expect every report of this offence to be taken seriously.”
Following this debate, and seemingly following intervention from ministers, the CPS guidance on sexual offences, and specifically sex for rent arrangements, were amended in 2018-2019. Despite this shift in the guidance, no prosecutions were pursued until 2021 when Christopher Cox became the first individual to be prosecuted for a sex for rent arrangement.
R v Cox
Christopher Cox was the subject of an undercover sting operation undertaken by ITV researchers for ‘The Kyle Files’. Mr Cox had advertised on Craigslist seeking a live-in female aged 16-28 who would “be expected to cook, clean and do the laundry, possibly more” for a free room. The “more” in this context, upon enquiry, was sexual services.
Mr Cox had openly admitted to having engaged in previous such arrangements in which he was able to produce evidence of ostensibly positive relationships with previous females, and produced reference style messages from these previous females to allay any concerns about the subject of this trial. Mr Cox contended that the arrangements were entirely consensual, a matter not contested by the Crown, and the terms were subject to further agreement to ensure the consent and agreement of both parties.
The 2 counts of incitement relating to the ITV researchers were the subject of an application to stay the counts as an abuse of process, in which was cited the lack of clarity of Parliament’s intent as to which consensual arrangements fell foul of the legislation and which did not; that the lack of prosecutions for ‘sex for rent’ offending since the enactment of section 52 of the 2003 Act may have given rise to an implied permission to operate; and that the lack of clarity taken in conjunction with the tacit decision not to prosecute led to uncertainty in the law as protected by Article 7 of the Human Rights Act.
The application was opposed, and was ultimately declined by the Resident Judge of Guildford Crown Court. Mr Cox pleaded guilty to the two counts of incitement to prostitution under section 52, and to a further count of controlling prostitution for gain contrary to section 53. Mr Cox was sentenced on 10 May 2022 to 6 months’ imprisonment in relation to each incitement count, and 12 months’ imprisonment in relation to the section 53 offending, to be served concurrently. On 12 July 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld the total sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that it was common ground that the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for offending contrary to sections 52 and 53 did not have sex for rent arrangements in mind when they were promulgated.
The Future for ‘Sex for Rent’ Arrangements
It is clear from His Honour Judge Fraser’s dismissal of the abuse argument and from his sentencing remarks, that the courts can and should interpret the statute as being sufficiently wide to cover sex for rent arrangements, and that the debates in Parliament coupled with the subsequently drafted CPS guidance on prosecutions represented sufficient clarity in the law, and confirmed that many of these types of arrangements are by their nature exploitative of vulnerable people. It remains the case that exploitation is a factor that will continue to exercise the courts. Moreover, those who would seek to prey on the vulnerable, even in the context of ostensibly consensual arrangements, are likely to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Article by Anoushka Twining
Rupert Hallowes was instructed by Blackfords LLP in both the Crown Court proceedings and in the Court of Appeal. Representation was extended to cover the instruction of Martin Rutherford KC in relation to the abuse of process arguments.
