The 41-year-old woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, booked a hotel room and supplied lubricant and condoms after deciding with her partner Garry John Devine, 51, that the girl would become a prostitute to make money.

The mother booked a room at a Hobart hotel for two nights for her daughter to work, leaving her under the supervision of Devine, who would knock on the door to tell the men when their time was up.

The prostitution continued at Devine's Glenorchy unit, with the mother supplying lubricant and condoms for the girl. It was estimated she slept with more than 100 men during the one month period, charging an extra $50 if the men did not want to wear a condom.

The girl contracted sexually transmitted diseases, including genital warts and chlamydia.

Proceeds from the sex business were split with Devine receiving about $100 a day, the mother $400 a day. The rest was used to buy drugs.

The woman initially denied knowledge of the business in two separate police interviews but pleaded guilty in the Hobart Supreme Court on Monday to procuring unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 17, being a commercial operator of a sexual services business and receiving a fee derived from sexual services provided by a child in a sexual services business.

In handing down the sentence this morning, Justice Peter Evans said the prostitution was an appalling breach of trust that lacked the maternal instincts of a mother.

Justice Evan ordered the woman not be eligible for parole until she had served seven years in jail.

Devine was sentenced to 10 years' jail with an eight-year non-parole period but is appealing against his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

JUDGE'S SENTENCING STATEMENT

The defendant is convicted on her pleas of guilty to a charge of procuring unlawful sexual intercourse with a young person, a charge of being a commercial operator of a sexual services

business, a charge of receiving a fee derived directly from sexual services provided by a child in a sexual services business and a charge of breach of bail.

The last three convictions are dealt with by this Court pursuant to the Criminal Code, s385A.

At the time of the offences, the complainant was 12 years of age and the defendant, her mother, was 40 years of age. On 20 August 2009, the complainant was, together with her

mother and Gary Devine, at her mother's residence.

When the complainant's mother complained about not having sufficient money, Mr Devine suggested that money could be made from prostitution.

It was then agreed between the three of them that the complainant would become a prostitute.

On the following day, Mr Devine wrote out an advertisement for "Angela 18 years old, and new in town", together with a telephone number.

The defendant drove Mr Devine to the local newsagent in order for him to place the advertisement in the Mercury newspaper.

He returned to that newsagent on at least two more occasions to again place advertisements offering the complainant's services.

The advertisements appeared on six occasions between 22 August 2009 and 17 September 2009. The defendant paid for a number of the advertisements.

The defendant booked a room at the Midcity hotel for two nights to be used by the complainant for prostitution.

The defendant gave Mr Devine two packets of condoms and he passed them on to the complainant.

Mr Devine accompanied the complainant to the hotel and Mr Devine remained there while the complainant saw clients. The rate charged for the complainant's services was $100 per half hour and $50 extra if the customer did not wear a condom.

The complainant saw many clients in the hotel room over the period of two days and had sexual intercourse with them. The complainant estimates that over the period of two days she earned $2000.

From this she gave the defendant $400, Mr Devine $100 and

the balance was spent on drugs which the complainant gave to her mother.

When the complainant was at the hotel her older sister, then aged 15, asked the defendant where the complainant was. The defendant replied, "I can't say, I'll get into trouble, no

one is meant to know".

Shortly thereafter the older sister overheard a speakerphone conversation between the complainant and the defendant, during which the defendant enquired whether the complainant was enjoying herself.

The older sister again asked what was going on and the defendant replied, "it doesn't matter we are going to get money out of it. We are going to get two Commodores one for you and one for [the complainant]".

Later in the day, when the older sister again asked what was going on, the defendant replied that the complainant "was working laying on her back working at a hotel in the city for money".

The older sister responded, "How could you do it?" and the defendant replied that they would have money to pay off the house and get the car window fixed.

After the Midcity hotel enterprise, it was decided between Mr Devine and the defendant that the complainant should work from Mr Devine's residence, and the complainant did so for a period of about four weeks, mainly from Thursday to Sunday.

Mr Devine made appointments for the complainant in a diary kept for that purpose, as did the complainant's 15 year old sister.

Over this four week period the complainant saw in excess of 100 clients with whom she had sexual intercourse.

Mr Devine was always at the residence. The defendant

brought in stocks of lubricant and condoms.

On each day that she worked the complainant gave the defendant $400 and Mr Devine $200, although on a number of occasions Mr Devine took more than $200.

The balance of the funds obtained was spent on drugs for the complainant, the defendant and Mr Devine. The prosecution is unable to state with any certainty how much money the defendant and Mr Devine received, but estimates that it amounts to thousands of dollars.

In late September 2009, Mr Devine decided that it was too risky to continue prostituting the complainant and the arrangement ceased.

In early October 2009, following a notification from the Child Protection Authority, a police investigation was launched into what had occurred and statements were taken from

the complainant and the defendant.

Before they spoke to the police, the defendant and the complainant discussed the need to tell the police that the defendant had not known what was going on and that only Mr Devine and the complainant were involved. This they did.

When interviewed by police on 4 November 2009, Mr Devine made some admissions, down-played his involvement and attributed his involvement to the instigation of the defendant.

When re-interviewed by police on 24 December 2009, the defendant asserted that she only became aware of the complainant's involvement in prostitution after it had finished.

After receiving a letter signed by Mr Devine dated 19 January 2010, in which he made assertions as to the defendant's involvement in what had occurred, and after taking statements from the complainant and her older sister, the police again interviewed the defendant on 19 February 2010.

The defendant initially denied the allegations against her but ultimately admitted that she had been involved in prostituting her daughter after it was pointed out that both her daughters would, in the absence of admissions by her, be required to give evidence against her.

That day the defendant was charged and bailed on conditions which included a condition that she not communicate with her children.

Immediately after leaving court she, and her older daughter spoke, and that daughter stayed with the defendant over the following weekend.

As a result, the defendant's bail was revoked on 22 February 2010.

She has been held in custody since then.

Since the conduct in question, the complainant has been diagnosed to be suffering from, and has been treated for, sexually transmitted diseases including genital warts and

Chlamydia.

The complainant has not personally provided a victim impact statement. Her father says that she finds it too difficult to talk about how she is getting along.

I have no doubt that what occurred has had a most deleterious impact on her. Experience suggests that in the course of time she may suffer from psychiatric problems that can be related to the conduct in question.

The defendant is 41 years of age. She was adopted within weeks of her birth. She did not enjoy a close relationship with her adoptive parents. She met her biological mother on

a few occasions, but it seems she did not develop a relationship with her, and she never met her biological father.

During school holidays she, on occasions, spent time with an adoptive uncle and aunt who resided in South Australia. When 9 years of age, that uncle sexually abused her and that

abuse continued on occasions until she was 15. In 2006, she complained about his abuse, and in July 2009 he was tried and acquitted on charges referable to it. She gave evidence on his trial and was angered and distressed by his acquittal. Within a month of that acquittal, the criminal conduct for which she is now to be sentenced began.

She was a poor student and her education is limited. She tended to get into trouble at school and left when 15 years of age. The only employment she appears to have obtained

since then is some manual work in a warehouse and some work assisting people with disabilities. In recent years she has received a disability support benefit as she suffers from

back problems.

She has been a daily user of cannabis for over 20 years, having commenced using that drug when she was 18, and she has other drug abuse problems. For some years her friendship group has included drug users. The need to service her addiction to drugs has put her under significant financial stress.

Over the years she has received treatment for depression and substance abuse. A psychiatrist who examined her in 2007 commented that she was under enormous psycho-social stress involving her then relationship, her children and finances. She has been prescribed medication for her depressed mood and pain control.

Child Protection has played a role in the care of her three children over the past five years.

The Court has been provided with a recent psychological report prepared for the defendant's solicitors by Dr Georgina O'Donnell. Dr O'Donnell says that on the information available to her there is no suggestion that the defendant was labouring under the influence of a major mental illness or intellectual disability when she engaged in the conduct for which she is now to be sentenced. Factors that Dr O'Donnell says may have had some influence on the defendant's decision-making at the time include:

- her chronic drug addiction which may have been fuelled by her anger and distress over the acquittal of her adoptive uncle on charges of sexually abusing her;

- her desire to make money to support her drug addiction;

- her distorted view that the complainant, being post-pubescent, was an adult; and

- her failure to express attitudes of parental responsibility and protection appropriate to the complainant's developmental stage.

For his part in the prostitution of the complainant, Mr Devine was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and it was ordered that he be eligible to apply for parole after serving

eight years of that sentence.

For reasons of parity, it is necessary to compare some matters that may bear on the sentencing of the defendant and Mr Devine.

The defendant's conduct, she being the mother of the complainant, was an appalling breach of trust and an abuse of her maternal obligations to her daughter. Mr Devine was not subject to similar obligations to the complainant.

Mr Devine is ten years older than the defendant and, as between them; I conclude that he was the dominant personality. Whilst he played the leading role in managing the prostitution of the complainant, the defendant was actively involved. The defendant derived a greater financial benefit than Mr Devine from their criminal conduct. Mr Devine has a very extensive criminal record and has been imprisoned on many occasions. The defendant's record of prior convictions is inconsequential.

The defendant was initially less forthcoming than Mr Devine when interviewed by police. The defendant encouraged the complainant to falsely tell the police that the defendant had

no knowledge of what had gone on.

Whilst in custody before being sentenced, Mr Devine had a number of telephone conversations with the complainant's older sister in which he threatened violence towards the complainant. It was Mr Devine who terminated the prostituting of the complainant.

Whilst the defendant has been in custody, it has been necessary to physically separate her from other inmates due to their attitude towards her conduct. This isolation, coupled with her back problems, will make her time in prison more difficult than it might otherwise have been.

On balance I can see no reason for imposing a different head sentence on the defendant than was imposed on Mr Devine, but I am satisfied that she should receive a shorter parole

eligibility period than he did.

The defendant is sentenced to ten years' imprisonment to date from 22 February 2010. It is ordered that she be eligible to apply for parole after serving seven years of this sentence.

It is ordered that the defendant's name be placed on the register kept pursuant to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, and that she comply with the reporting obligations under that Act for five years

The levy fixed by the Victims of Crime Compensation Act for the defendant's offences is to be paid by her to the Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service, within 28 days

of her release from prison.