Crime and Policing Bill

Written evidence submitted by the Adult Sexual Exploitation (ASE) Partnership (CPB20)

Crime and Policing Bill Call for Evidence

1. Summary

1.1. This evidence is submitted on behalf of the Adult Sexual Exploitation (ASE) Partnership, a consortium of charities; A Way Out, Ashiana, Angelou Centre, Basis Yorkshire, WomenCentre, Together Women, GROW and Changing Lives. The partnership provides trauma-informed support to survivors of adult sexual exploitation across the North East, Yorkshire and Merseyside, and advocates for local and national change. With the voices of the women we support at the heart of our work, we challenge systems with direct, up to date, practical knowledge and experience and campaign for long-term structural change. Since the partnership was formed in 2019, we have supported over 880 women.

1.2. We welcome this call for evidence, and the opportunity it creates to shine a light on the nature and extent of sexual exploitation of adult women across our communities, as well as highlighting the risk of harm that certain measures could cause to the sex work community.

1.3. Our key messages:

1.3.1. Conflating consensual sex work and sexual exploitation can mean that those experiencing sexual exploitation are more likely to be missed and can put individuals engaged in consensual sex work at risk of harm.

1.3.2. Adult sexual exploitation is widely misunderstood. The introduction of a statutory definition and accompanying guidance through secondary legislation would ensure that agencies are working to the same understanding of the issue and false perceptions can more easily be challenged.

1.3.3. The legal definition of intimacy in relation to non-consensual intimate images should be broadened to include cultural intimacy.

1.3.4. While technology has had a growing role in sexual exploitation, it is also vital for both sex workers and agencies and individuals who provide outreach and harm reduction. Making it a criminal offence to operate websites hosting adverts for ‘prostitution’ would be detrimental to sex workers and harm reduction efforts.

2. Conflating consensual sex work with sexual exploitation

2.1. The language of sexual exploitation in proposed Bill amendments NC1, NC2 and NC3 conflate ‘prostitution’ or consensual sex work with exploitation, which is harmful for both groups.

2.2. Sex work is a broad term for various sexual activities, where the person providing sexual services profits in some way, often financially. The ASE Partnership takes the position that such exchanges can be consensual and thus should not be considered the same as sexual exploitation. Sexual exploitation on the face of it can look like legitimate sex work, however such interactions are not consensual, and the perpetrator is disproportionately profiting from the exchange. However, in cases of adult sexual exploitation, the freedom and choice to consent is removed through the actions of the perpetrator – i.e. through coercion, manipulation, deception.

2.3. There are forms of sex work that are rooted in structural failings, whereby a person is not coerced into sexual activity, but they are constrained by social and/or economic inequalities. In cases such as these, sexual activity is exchanged for a need such as housing, food, tobacco, protection, alcohol, or drugs. The degree to which a person buying sex is knowingly taking advantage of this need can vary, however, at the extreme end this could constitute sexual exploitation

2.4. Consensual sex work and sexual exploitation are not mutually exclusive. People may be concurrently freely choosing to engage in sex work whilst also being sexually exploited, or arrangements which begin consensually may later become exploitative. Equally, survivors of sexual exploitation may choose to engage in consensual sex work.

2.5. As well as meaning that those experiencing sexual exploitation are often missed, conflating sex work and sexual exploitation can lead to further risk for sex workers. This misrecognition can deter those involved in sex work from accessing services and advice about safe working practices, if they perceive that they will be simply seen as exploited, without services recognising their sense of agency. Many do not feel that language relating to ‘victim’ and ‘survivor’ are reflective of their experiences and can feel excluded from services who might mean well but can stigmatise with their language and approach.

2.6. Adults experiencing sexual exploitation can often face victim-blaming language due to the conflation of sex work and sexual exploitation.

2.7. We recommend that any reference to sexual exploitation within this Bill refers only to exploitative practices whereby the freedom and choice for an individual to consent is removed through the actions of the perpetrator – i.e. through coercion, manipulation, force or deception.

3. Definition of Adult Sexual Exploitation

3.1. There is no statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation, and therefore it is widely misunderstood. While we advocate for the introduction of a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation, this should be developed in consultation with the sector and those with lived experience in order to prevent any unintended harm or risk to the groups it aims to protect, and we discourage any amendments to the Bill that introduce a definition that has not been through this process.

3.2. The Adult Sexual Exploitation Partnership advocates for the use of the following definition, accompanied by explanatory guidance:

3.2.1. Adult sexual exploitation is a form of sexual abuse of people aged 18 or over whereby an individual or group threaten, coerce, manipulate or deceive the victim into sexual activity for the benefit of the perpetrator(s). Sexual activity does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology. It is distinguished from consensual sex work as the act of coercion, manipulation and deceit removes the freedom and choice to consent.

3.3. One of the reasons that ASE cases do not progress when reported to police is that there is an incorrect belief that the victim consented to the sexual activity, meaning existing criminal legislation which relies on the absence of consent cannot be utilised. The impact of grooming and coercion on a person’s ability to consent is poorly understood and could be addressed through a statutory definition and guidance. Improved understanding of the nature of consent in ASE cases will enable existing criminal legislation which relies on proving absence of consent to be better utilised.

3.4. When people and services do not understand what ASE is and how women experiencing ASE may present to services, those women are prevented from accessing support and protection, and perpetrators are left unpunished.

3.4.1. "Having a definition of ASE in addition to the offences under the Sexual Offences Act recognises vulnerability of the victim, identifies behaviours of perpetrator to conduct the sexual activity. So, whereas the definition of rape is extremely clear the conduct to commit the offence is not made out in the definition. The proposed ASE definition identifies that conduct and therefore helps evidence intent." (Police Superintendent.)

3.5. When they are not correctly identified as a victim, women are also more likely to be unfairly criminalised. Women experiencing ASE will sometimes be forced or coerced to recruit other women into exploitation or commit other criminal acts or may fight back against their abuser(s).

3.6. There are existing safeguarding protocols for victims of domestic abuse (e.g. MARAC) however many victims of sexual exploitation who have experienced similar patterns of coercion and control are denied this support if they are not in an intimate relationship with the perpetrator or cannot name the perpetrator(s). This not only excludes them from safeguarding support but other provision such as access to safe refuge and other housing entitlements.

3.7. In the absence of a statutory definition, organisations have created their own which has led to inconsistent understandings of ASE being applied, including in how local authorities interpret their duties under the Care Act 2014, which can lead to some victims falling through the gaps.

3.8. Multiple Serious Case Reviews and Safeguarding Adult Reviews have highlighted the need for a consistent definition and guidance around ASE. For example, the Thematic Serious Case Review following Operation Sanctuary, known as the Spicer Review, published in 2018, highlights a lack of understanding of ASE. Recommendation 2.2 of the review is that "The Government should urgently issue guidance or advice on addressing sexual exploitation of vulnerable adults." (p.44)

3.9. We recommend that a comprehensive statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation and guidance for key agencies is introduced through secondary legislation and consultation with the sector.

4. Cultural intimate image abuse

4.1. Schedule 8 Part 1 of the Bill outlines proposed amendments of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Intimate image abuse is a form of sexual abuse whereby a person produces or shares intimate content, or threatens to do so, without the consent of the person depicted in that content. The Adult Sexual Exploitation Partnership have supported women for a number of years who have been subject to this abuse, including both sex workers whose content has been illegally reproduced and women whose experiences of sexual exploitation have included intimate image abuse.

4.1.1. For example, we have supported women whose sexual exploitation was perpetuated by threats to share images of them without a hijab.

4.2. What we have found through our work with these women is that more needs to be done to ensure all forms of intimate image abuse can be appropriately dealt with, including considering how cultural sensitivities are not being addressed in existing legislation.

4.3. Protections for victim-survivors of cultural intimate image abuse are extremely limited under current legislation. We were pleased to see the Women and Equalities Committee’s recent recommendation to extend the legal definition of an intimate image to include images where "because of the person’s religious or cultural background, the person commonly wears particular attire of religious or cultural significance when in public; and the material depicts, or appears to depict, the person: (a) without that attire; and (b) in circumstances in which an ordinary reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy". (Tackling Non-Consensual Intimate Image Abuse, 31.)

4.4. We recommend that this Bill is utilised to extend the legal definition of intimate images to better protect victim-survivors of cultural intimate image abuse.

5. Protections through technology

5.1. NC1: Commercial Sexual Exploitation by a Third Party would make it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, including by operating a website hosting adverts for prostitution.

5.2. While the role of technology in exploitation is growing, we oppose the proposed amendment to criminalise ‘websites hosting adverts for prostitution’, commonly referred to as adult service websites. These websites are vital for sex workers to generate income, allowing them greater control over earnings and greater safety than other forms of sex work, and also provide opportunities for outreach and harm reduction work for both survivors of exploitation and people engaging in consensual sex work.

5.3. Evidence from other countries who have introduced similar legislation illustrates the rise in exploitation, human trafficking and violence it can cause. For example, following the introduction of FOSTA/SESTA in San Francisco police recorded a 170% jump in reports of human trafficking and a tripling in street-based sex work (New Laws Forced Sex Workers Back On SF Streets, Caused 170% Spike In Human Trafficking - CBS San Francisco (cbsnews.com)) where they are exposed to higher rates of violence. A survey conducted by Hacking//Hustling found that following the introduction of FOSTA/SESTA 33.8% of respondents reported an increase in violence from clients and 21% said they were not able to access harm reduction online that they were able to in the past (Erased_Updated.pdf). 

5.4. We recommend that the Committee reject the amendment to criminalise websites used for sex work / ‘prostitution’ and that efforts to protect survivors of online exploitation, and to increase protections of consensual sex workers utilising technology are done in consultation with the sector and those with lived experience. 

March 2025