4A £50,000 fine has been imposed on publisher Mike Hogan after he pleaded guilty to publishing advertisements which promoted brothels and prostitution in In Dublin magazine. Judge Kevin Haugh at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court said the advertisements made no attempt to disguise the services offered.
Det Insp John McMahon said these advertisements attracted higher payment than others in the magazine, with one-eighth of a page costing up to £400, giving a figure of £3,200 for a page. There were 26 issues annually. He added that 64 per cent of the males interviewed in the brothels revealed they had got directions to the premises from these magazines.
Hogan (40), of Camden Place, Dublin, married with three children, pleaded guilty to 10 sample charges of publishing advertisements of prostitution which gave rise to a reasonable inference that the premises were used as brothels. All the other counts were taken into consideration.
Judge Haugh said that while Hogan was entitled to benefit from his full co-operation with the Garda, his guilty plea and the manner in which he had conducted himself since being charged, he had attempted "to play ducks and drakes" with the Censorship of Publications Board.
The judge noted the estimate by gardai that in one year the publisher had earned about £400,000 from these advertisements, so that the financial gain was at the upper end of the scale.
The maximum sentence was one of £10,000 on each charge. In all the circumstances he felt the appropriate penalty in this case should be £5,000 on each of the 10 charges.
Det Inspt McMahon told prosecuting counsel Mr Brendan Grehan that the charges covered the period from June 19th, 1997 to August 12th, 1999, and the publications involved were In Dublin and Dublin magazines.
The premises involved in the 10 charges were named as "Flamingos", "Tropical Paradise", "New Imperial", "Angels", "Emmanuelles", "Personal Services", "Tiger Lilies", "Secrets of Seduction", "Leather and Lace", and finally "Xclusive", which sought staff.
He said all these premises had been visited by gardai and were found to be brothels within the meaning of the Act. "Leather and Lace" also seemed to offer homosexual services and the content of the advertisement was very explicit, with scantily-dressed women in provocative poses.
Det Insp McMahon said Hogan directed his staff to co-operate fully with gardai. He accepted full responsibility for all the advertisements and indicated that he alone had benefited. None of his staff had editorial control over the contents.
He said Hogan indicated he gave instructions that some very explicit photographs he believed were offensive should be removed from advertisements and replaced by something less offensive.
Det Insp McMahon said Hogan stated that the advertisements had been published in In Dublin before he bought it in 1992. He didn't solicit the advertisements, which cost some 85 per cent more than advertisements in other parts of the publication. He had no previous convictions.
Det Insp McMahon agreed with defence counsel Mr Vincent Heneghan that some of the advertisers paid less than others. Mr Heneghan noted that the advertisements were already carried in the magazine when the defendant bought it and the legislation under which he had been prosecuted was introduced in 1994.
Hogan was unaware of any illegality until contacted by the Censorship Board around August 1999. He accepted that ignorance of the law was no defence. "It was very embarrassing for Mr Hogan and will no doubt affect his business dealings in the future," said Mr Heneghan.