Not exactly correct, oppaiSuki.
Tina does run a brothel. She does still offer services, herself, so there are two women there.
As an aside, she still advertises herself as the provider, too and never mentions that clients will be fobbed off with the 'import', so it's a blatant bait and switch, too - for which she isn't being condemned.
Also, even if Tina didn't offer services, she still operates a brothel, because more than one woman offers the services. The 'imported' girls don't have to all be there at the same time. Just having the rotation of women is enough.
From the CPS Guidance -
External Link/Members Only“It is not illegal to sell sex at a brothel provided the sex worker is not involved in management or control of the brothel. A house occupied by one woman and used by her alone for prostitution, is not a brothel”:Gorman v Standen,Palace Clarke v Standen (1964) 48 Cr App R 30.
“Premises only become a brothel when more than one woman uses premises for the purposes of prostitution, either simultaneously or one at a time”: Stevens v Christy [1987] Cr. App. R. 249, DC. This implies that if two women are present, both must be there for the purposes of prostitution. In circumstances where prostitutes are working individually out of one flat but
there is a rotation of occupants and the young women are moved on a regular basis, it does constitute a brothel.
On the issue of police raids. The place quoted is in W1. It might be that it's the same police unit that raided the walk-ups and massage shops, in Soho and Chinatown, under the guise of looking for trafficked women. It's what used to be The Clubs and Vice Unit, now lumped in with
The Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9) It might depend on whether Tina's place shows up, as a link in whatever chain the Met are following.
