The Liability Of Hoteliers For Child Abuse And Child Exploitation

INTRODUCTION

Certain hotels are sited in city centres or close to the main road networks. They are easily accessible and some are vulnerable to misuse by those engaged in crime. Bookings can be made late at night; guests might arrive in large groups; they are sometimes able to bypass reception either on arrival or on departure; there may be no night receptionist to check who might be brought in. It is not unknown for particular hotels in particular areas to be used for the exploitation of vulnerable persons. It may be argued that certain hoteliers are on notice of a possible problem relating to the exploitation of young people within the network. The question is what is to be done to protect young people who might be taken to an hotel and there abused and to limit the exposure of the hotelier to liability for any claim which might be made against them. Some hoteliers actively seek the assistance of bodies such as the NSPCC in the preparation of training for staff. Training is not enough. Nor is the fact that guest accompanying a child may be obliged to identify the child and their relationship with the child.

COOPERATION WITH THE POLICE

The police have used certain hotels for the surveillance of those engaged in the exploitation of young people. Sometimes they get it right and abusers are arrested. Sometimes it goes spectacularly wrong and innocent couples might be intercepted

Local police forces may wish to enlist the assistance of local managers to assist in operational matters without reference to senior management. Such assistance may be given in a way which may expose the hotelier to liability where for example it involves surveillance of individuals, which results in a crime being committed before police intervention and for which the hotelier might be held liable. Such assistance might put the manager outwith the terms of his employment. As an individual the manager might be exposed to risk.

The hotelier should have a protocol for assisting the police and a senior manager or director who is in a position to deal with the police and take such advice as may be necessary for the protection of young people, the investigation of crime and the protection of the hotelier's interests. The existence of the protocol and means of communicating with the senior manager/director should be communicated to all local police forces and CEOP.

The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Section 116 provides that a police officer of at least the rank of inspector may issue a notice to the owner, operator or manager of a hotel that the officer reasonably believes has been or will be used for the purposes of child exploitation or conduct that is preparatory to or otherwise connected with child exploitation. The notice will specify the hotel, the date on which it comes into effect and expires. The notice cannot last more than 6 months. The notice may require details of guests' names and addresses and certain other information about guests. That information may include information which is readily available from the guests. "Guest" is defined as "a person who, for a charge payable by the person or another, has the use of a guest room at the hotel..". "Child exploitation" is defined as conduct which constitutes the whole range of offences under the Sexual offences Act 2003 and Protection of Children Act 1978. If the hotel fails to comply with the notice, an offence is committed. There is a mechanism for appeal to the Magistrates Court.

LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND STEPS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE HOTELIER AND ITS REPUTATION

Any collusion by employees will render the hotelier liable for a resulting claim. Where staff have direct knowledge of the age of a young person who is obviously in the hotel for the purpose of abuse, the hotelier will be liable. The only way to reduce exposure is to manage recruitment in such a way as to render it less likely that criminals or those likely to be vulnerable to coercion will be employed in a position of responsibility. This will involve interviews and the taking of references and where possible background checks.

CCTV is used as a means of at least monitoring those who might come into the hotel but it cannot be used in hotel rooms for obvious reason. Images must not be kept for more than is strictly necessary bearing in mind the purpose for keeping them. Hotels frequently retain images for 30 days. It is too short a period. Any longer period must be a matter for discussion with the Commissioner. To keep all images for the entire limitation period, whether primary or extended by reason of a claimant being a minor at the date of the incident may be said to be too long. In most cases it is likely that a claim will be intimated within a shorter period and a period of 12 months might be considered. In U.S. hotel litigation one looks for daily records for the previous year.

Hotels have a general duty to protect guests and those brought onto the premises. It is a duty which is hedged round by the concept of reasonableness, fault and the concept of reasonable foreseeability. The hotelier is not an insurer in respect of every criminal act committed by third parties.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The sort of duty owed to certain people is never the same. It is, to an extent elastic.

UNITED KINGDOM

In the UK Court of Appeal case, EVERETT V COMOJO (UK) T/A THE METROPLITAN BAR 2011 PIQR the managers of a night club were sued by guests who had been stabbed by another guest. The claim was in negligence in that it was alleged that they had failed to take sufficient steps to protect the guests. It was alleged that the doormen had not been instructed to search guests coming in; one of the waitresses had failed to report concerns she had about the assailant to the door supervisor rather than the bar manager. The first allegation was rejected by the judge. The appeal concerned the second point. The Court held that the...