wim said:
And the answer is......no. Bawdy house charges are considered "status" offenses meaning that you must be found as an "inmate" (SP) or a "found in" (John). Living off the avails is a little more complicated but still requires a temporal connection.
Specifically, the police have to prove that she was in the bawdy house, and that it was a bawdy house when she was in it. That does NOT mean they have to arrest her there, or even on that day.
You MIGHT be able to play dodgy games with the term "found in", but unfortunately there is no such language around section 210(2)a, "Every one who is an inmate of a common bawdy-house is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction".
That does not say they have to arrest her inside the bawdy house, only that they have to prove she was an inmate of the bawdy house.
Even in the case of section 210(1)b, with the "found in" phrasing, I think they could find her in the bawdy house on Monday (possibly without her knowledge) and arrest her for it at some other location on Tuesday (or five months later).
There IS a temporal connection, and they DO need to prove the temporal connection. Arresting her on the spot inside the bawdy house eliminates the need for them to prove she was there at the time--but if they have OTHER proof that she was there at the time (videotapes of her being there at the time, witnesses, photographs, etc) they can still charge her.
Plainly quitting makes their case tougher, and anything that makes their case tougher is good. So she should quit, at least until the heat is off.