Abuse of Process case against Surrey Police on behalf of Hanna Morris
Monday 21 February
10am Guildford Crown Court
Hanna Morris said:
I would like to thank
everyone who gave their support, either in body or spirit, for my court case on 4 February. It is gratefully appreciated. This is a harrowing time for my family and I, but we are strengthened by knowing that people's thoughts are with us. The case has
been adjourned till 21 February, if anybody would like to attend court you'd be very welcome as we hope to put forward a strong united front.
The case aims to stop the prosecution of Ms Morris who reported a violent attack and
now faces charges for brothel-keeping and money laundering.
On 16 September 2009, Ms Morris dialled 999 when two identifiable men, one who appeared to have a sawn-off shot gun up his sleeve, barged into a flat used by her escort agency, threw
petrol around and threatened to torch the place. Anxious to protect the women who work for the agency, Ms Morris innocently helped the police investigation.
The abuse of process case is being brought because:
- The investigation against the dangerous men has been dropped, but Ms Morris is being prosecuted.
- Ms Morris's gave the police information on the understanding that it was needed to pursue the attackers. Without it, Surrey Police would have no
evidence against her.
- Ms Morris was never at any point cautioned that what she was telling the police would be used as evidence against her.
- If the judge rules that there has been no abuse of process, Ms Morris will ask the court to
exclude evidence obtained from her, from any proceedings against her.
Ms Morris' solicitor Nigel Richardson (Hodge Jones and Allen) wrote to Surrey Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to ask for the prosecution to be dropped as it is completely contrary to the stated aims of trying to improve the safety of sex workers
and that it is hard to see how a prosecution in this case can do anything but . . . make would-be attackers more confident in their actions and increase the dangers for working women. . . the prosecution of this offence is likely to directly
discourage the reporting of crimes against potentially vulnerable women and thus increase risks to their safety.
Why is Ms Morris being prosecuted for trying to protect women and ensure that violent men are not free to attack others? The
Director of Public Prosecutions claims to prioritise women's safety. What does he have to say about this prosecution?
The prominent anti-rape group Women Against Rape comments:
90% of rapists go free.
Prosecuting Hannah Morris who tried to bring two violent men to justice is perverse. Rapists and other violent men often target sex workers assuming they cannot call the police. If sex workers are denied the protection of the law, this vulnerability is
magnified. The CPS and police should prosecute rapists, not victims.
Is profiteering by police and CPS behind this surge of prosecutions? Hanna Morris is not the only woman who is being prosecuted in this way. The CPS's record
is riddled with such injustices. Under Proceeds of Crime law the police keep 50% of assets confiscated during raids and 25% from subsequent prosecutions, with the CPS keeping another 25% and the Inland Revenue the rest. Ms Morris's home and life savings
have been frozen pending confiscation if she is found guilty.
English Collective of Prostitutes
020 7482 2496