R v Crabb[2014] QCA 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[1] MARGARET McMURDO P:  I agree with the reasons of Ann Lyons J for granting this application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing the appeal.

[2] The respondent understandably emphasised that the applicant's offending involved procuring over prolonged periods five vulnerable teenagers for prostitution involving unprotected sexual intercourse.  It was fortunate that none contracted a sexually transmitted disease and unsurprising that one became pregnant.  The applicant also provided the young women with alcohol and drugs.  Their victim impact statements set out the detrimental effect of the offending.  Depending on the circumstances of the case, such offending could attract a considerably higher sentence than the nine year sentence with parole eligibility after three years substituted by this Court.  That is especially so where force is used, where young people have been pressured into prostitution by parents or others in a position of trust or where there is some other significant power imbalance between the procurer and the procured.

[3] This applicant, however, had led a severely troubled and dysfunctional life, as had the young women she procured.  It may be that not all their problems outlined in the victim impact statements are the sole responsibility of the applicant.  The details of the applicant's background were set out in the report of psychologist, Mr Peter Perros.[1]  She has a low IQ, is learning disabled, has low self-esteem, may have a mild brain impairment and has severe psychological and emotional problems.  Although Mr Perros apprehended that she tended to over-report her symptoms, he considered she was anxious, depressed and with on-going symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.  She required long-term psychological therapy and responded well under supervision.  Although the 32 year old applicant was considerably older than the young women she procured, Mr Perros considered her unfortunate life experiences and psychological problems meant that she befriended troubled young women with similar psychological issues.  He opined that she procured them for prostitution as she knew no better.

[4] At sentence the applicant had spent 785 days in pre-sentence custody.  Mr Perros' belief that she responded well under supervision was supported by the positive report from Department of Corrective Services tendered at sentence.[2]  According to a reference provided by her mother's partner, a town planner with two adult children, he and the applicant's mother are caring for the applicant's 11 year old son and will assist her in her rehabilitation upon her release from prison.[3]

[5] The serious nature of the offending which took advantage of immature, troubled young women warranted a substantial head sentence to adequately reflect principles of community denunciation and personal and general deterrence.  The mitigating features included the applicant's lack of relevant criminal history, plea of guilty, efforts at and prospects of rehabilitation, and the unusual combination of mitigating features set out in Mr Perros' report.  The power imbalance between the applicant and the young women whom she procured was not as great as in the cases relied on by the respondent.  A balancing of the competing considerations warranted a head sentence of nine years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at about one-third.  Taking into account the 785 days of pre-sentence custody the day the applicant is eligible for parole is 24 November 2014.

ORDERS:

1.Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.Allow the appeal.

3.Set aside the sentence imposed at first instance.

4.Instead, on counts 1, 38, 60, 69 and 72 the applicant is sentenced to nine years imprisonment.  On all remaining counts the applicant is sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

5.The date the applicant is eligible for parole is 24 November 2014.

6.Under s 159A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) it is declared that 785 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 24 November 2011 and 17 January 2014 be declared time already served under the sentence.

[6] GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons of both the President and Ann Lyons J and with the orders proposed by the President.

[7] ANN LYONS J:

The Offences

[8] On 23 October 2013 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Ipswich District Court to a 73 Count indictment which charged her with the following offences:

(a) five counts of procuring prostitution of a young person;

(b) one count of procuring prostitution;

(c) 44 counts of indecent treatment of a child;

(d) six counts of supplying a dangerous drug with a circumstance of aggravation; and

(e) 17 counts of procuring a young person for carnal knowledge.

[9] The sentencing hearing was then adjourned to allow a pre-sentence report to be obtained from the Forensic Psychologist and Clinical Neuropsychologist, Mr Peter Perros.  That report was subsequently obtained and was dated 16 December 2013.  Mr Perros gave evidence in the sentencing hearing on 20 December 2013 and was cross-examined.  Submissions were made on sentence on that date and the sentencing hearing was adjourned until 17 January 2014 when the sentence was imposed by the learned sentencing judge.

[10] The applicant was convicted and sentenced to eleven years imprisonment in relation to counts 1, 2, 38, 60, 69 and 72 which related to five counts of procuring a young person to engage in prostitution and the one count of procuring prostitution.  In relation to the 44 counts of indecent treatment of a child, the six counts of supplying drugs with a circumstance of aggravation and the 17 counts of procuring a young person for carnal knowledge concurrent sentences of eight years imprisonment was imposed in relation to each offence.  The 785 days of pre-sentence custody were declared to be time served under the sentence and parole eligibility was fixed at 24 July 2015, which was after one-third or three years and eight months of the sentence had been served.

[11] The sentences imposed in relation to the 73 counts on the indictment as well as the maximum penalties those charges attracted can be conveniently set out as follows:

The circumstances of the offending

[12] The offences were committed over a five year period between September 2006 and November 2011 when the applicant was between 25 and 30 years of age and was working as a prostitute from her home.  During that period she became friends with five girls; E, K, S, J and R, and during the period of her friendship with them she organised for them to act as prostitutes.

● E was involved from September 2006 until November 2011 (five years).

● K was involved from September 2009 until September 2011 (two years).

● S was involved from March 2011 until November 2011 (eight months).

● J was involved from January 2011 until July 2011 (six months).

● R was involved from November 2010 until November 2011 (one year).

[13] For the first three years only one complainant, E was involved.  E lived in the same street as the applicant and knew that the applicant was a prostitute.  They became friends and E would attend parties at the applicant’s home and smoke marijuana.  When she dropped out of school at 15 she moved in with the applicant.  The applicant initially used E as a “body guard” when she saw clients but it is clear that E was gradually introduced to sexual activity by the applicant.  At 15 she was involved in masturbating men, providing oral sex and engaging in sexual intercourse.  She ultimately began working as a prostitute and was often supplied with drugs by the applicant prior to sexual activity with clients.  Whilst she was not coerced into sexual activity it was clear that there would be no money for rent, food or cigarettes if she did not earn money.  There is no doubt that she was required to engage in sexual activity with multiple men and some men on multiple occasions.  E eventually stopped living with the applicant after two and a half years but would be contacted by the applicant on occasions and asked to provide services including an occasion when the applicant procured her to engage in sexual activities when she was an adult (count 2).  The entire period that E was involved in prostitution was approximately five years and finished when E was almost 20 years of age.

[14] The complainant K was 14 when she was first procured to engage in prostitution and she too dropped out of school and moved in with the applicant for six to eight months.  She was also aware that the applicant and E were both working as prostitutes and she became involved in prostitution before she moved in with the applicant.  The applicant was also charged with numerous counts of indecent treatment of a child in relation to this complainant as well as several charges of procuring her for carnal knowledge.

[15] K was required to perform oral sex and engage in intercourse.  Men also performed oral sex on her.  She would be picked up by men and taken to their premises and sometimes to bushland where the sexual activity would take place.  On some occasions the applicant was present while the sexual activity took place.  K worked in this role for two years between 2009 and 2011, which were the last two years of the period of offending.  The applicant would take all the money earned by K and give her a percentage of the money received.  The applicant would keep her supplied with drugs and cigarettes.

[16] The complainant S was 15 years of age and self harming when she and the applicant met.  They were both involved with the Department of Child Safety at the time.  The applicant procured her to engage in regular sexual activity with two particular men namely ‘Stuart’ and ‘Wacka’.  She was often given drugs in exchange for sex and the applicant received the bulk of the funds S received.  While there were only a couple of clients S continued in the role for approximately eight months from March to November 2011.  Once again there was no coercion but rather the economic reality that the money was required for food and rent.

[17] The complainant J also lived in the same street as the applicant and the applicant lived with J and her family for a period of time until J’s mother kicked her out and J went with her.  The treatment of J and her siblings by their parents had previously been the subject of many notifications to the Department of Child Safety.  J has been assessed as functioning at the borderline to low average intelligence level.  The applicant advised police that J had been in her care for about six months and that the Department of Child Safety were aware of that fact.

[18] J was 15, almost 16 years of age, when she was procured to have sex regularly with one man about every three weeks.  She continued in this role for approximately seven months from January to July 2011 and ultimately fell pregnant to him.  When she was given money by the man she would then give it to the applicant who would use it to buy fuel, food and cigarettes.  She was not forced into her role but the applicant told her they needed the money in order to live.  J subsequently returned to live with her family when she became pregnant and refused to have an abortion.

[19] The complainant R was 15 to 16 when she met the applicant through the complainant K.  R lived with the applicant for a couple of months during a period when the applicant was living with some of her clients.  The sexual activity took place in the houses that those men lived in and on one occasion in a hotel room where she spent the night.  The applicant was present on some occasions when the sexual activity took place with R or would deliver her to the men and later come and collect her.  R continued in this role for approximately 12 months from November 2010 to November 2011.  She was required to engage in intercourse and oral sex with the men and was given drugs.  There were also charges which related to procuring this complainant for carnal knowledge as well as indecent treatment of a child charges.  There were also acts of exposing the complainant to indecent acts, whereby the applicant engaged in sexual acts with men.

The Crown arguments at the sentencing hearing

[20] The Crown argued at sentence that the applicant commenced her offending behaviour by befriending all of the girls at the age of 14 to 15 years and then supplying them with drugs and arranging clients for them for the purposes of prostitution.  It is clear that the women were all young vulnerable and were all under the age of 16 when they commenced working as prostitutes.  The Crown prosecutor submitted at sentence that the applicant had corrupted the young girls, not only by procuring them to engage in sexual activity for reward, but also by introducing them to drugs.  The Crown prosecutor argued that the applicant had groomed the young women:

“… by desensitizing them through watching her engage in sexual activity with the men, by demanding them to take part in sexual activity to pay their way, by incrementally demanding more of them in terms of not only their involvement in sexual activity, but the acts that they committed to the point that so far as some were concerned, when they were engaging in that sexual activity, she herself did not engage in any sexual activity with the men but simply reaped the benefits of what they did.

Your Honour, these girls were vulnerable girls and the accused knew that and she targeted them and exploited them for her gain. This was a commercial enterprise on some level, perhaps not geared to maximise monetary profits, but it was geared nonetheless to benefit the accused and for her gain. It was sophisticated. She set up an online and a telephone account in order to find clients. She advertised the girls by … posting their details on Facebook.”[4]

[21] The prosecutor also indicated that the applicant had exposed the complainants to risks in that she allowed the clients to take the young girls away to stay overnight in hotels, into bushland or to other places away from the meeting point.  It was argued that she set up regular clients for the girls.  It was submitted to the learned sentencing judge that each of the girls engaged in intercourse without protection and were not only at risk of falling pregnant but of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.  Indeed, one of the girls had fallen pregnant and given birth to a child at the age of 16.

[22] Because of those factors and the fact that the complainants were vulnerable young girls, the Crown prosecutor asked for the maximum penalty on the basis of general deterrence and personal deterrence.  It was argued that the applicant was a moderate risk of reoffending and therefore the protection of the community was also an issue.  It was also argued that the applicant had committed the offences as a mature woman and there was a notable difference between her age and the age of her victims.  It was acknowledged however that whilst the applicant had a criminal history, it was a relatively minor criminal history.  It was also significant that the offending period was protracted and that the applicant had entered a late plea of guilty after the matter was listed for trial and after one of the complainants had given evidence at a pre-recording.

[23] Reference was also made to the report of the psychologist Peter Perros.  Whilst it was accepted that there were symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder it was argued that there was no actual formal diagnosis of such a disorder.  It was acknowledged that the applicant had a learning disability and ‘possibly a low IQ’.  Reliance was placed at the sentencing hearing on a number of decisions, in particular R v KAK,[5] R v P[6] and R v TR & FP; ex parte Attorney-General.[7]

[24] Overall the Crown prosecutor submitted that the global criminality for the applicant should be reflected in a head sentence of fourteen years for the most serious charges and with lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for the other offences.  Taking into account the time already served of two years and six days, the Crown prosecutor submitted that a parole eligibility date should be fixed after serving five years and seven months or 40 per cent of the head sentence.  The Crown prosecutor submitted that the most serious offences were in fact the offences of procuring for prostitution but that those offences were not offences which would attract a serious violent offence declaration pursuant to Sch 1 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“PSA”).

Defence Submissions at the sentencing hearing

[25] At sentence the applicant’s counsel had relied on the same cases as the prosecutor relied on but submitted that a head sentence of no more than 10 years was warranted under the circumstances.  Counsel also submitted that this was not a sophisticated operation and that the applicant had been assessed by Peter Perros as having a low IQ.  He also noted that she had suffered quite horrific sexual and physical abuse in the context of extreme domestic violence which commenced at the age of 16.  She had her first child at the age of 17 who was removed from her care initially and after he was removed she took an overdose of Zoloft and was admitted to the Mental Health Unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.

[26] It was noted that the applicant had only worked briefly in factory based jobs which only lasted a few weeks.  Mr Perros stated that the applicant engaged in prostitution so she could raise her second son and pay bills.  She was also addicted to drugs and was often paid for sex with drugs.  Mr Perros indicated that it is well known that impulsivity and high risk sexual behaviours are common sequelae of traumatic distress in teenagers.  He stated, “Questions about high-risk sexual behaviours appear in several well-known trauma scales.  Ms Crabb is a text-book case.  She said she started using sex as a tool to make herself more attractive to males.  Additionally she sought out strong powerful males thinking they would protect her, but unfortunately when they became violent her injuries were quite severe.”[8]

[27] He noted that between the age of 17 and 24 she had had three relationships, all of which were psychologically or physically violent or both.  He noted that she used marijuana regularly from the age of 15 and usually smoked marijuana to put her on a high when she was working as a prostitute.  Mr Perros considered that the applicant had very high levels of depression, anxiety and stress, but noted she may be over-emphasising or over-reporting her level of distress.

[28] Mr Perros also noted that there was information which was suggestive of the presence of mild brain impairment and he considered that the overall impression was of a 32 year old learning-disabled woman with a low IQ.  He stated however that she was not intellectually disabled but would have struggled with learning at school.  He did not consider she had a severe head injury but believed: “She has severe psychological and emotional problems that have predisposed her to drug abuse (self-medication) and using sex to secure the affections of men.  She chooses powerful men believing they can protect her.”[9]  He considered that the applicant required long-term psychological therapy and life coaching, as well as ongoing, drug relapse prevention counselling.

[29] In terms of the offending behaviour I note Mr Perros’ view that the applicant, “seems to have befriended troubled young women with similar psychological issues to hers.”[10]

The application for leave to appeal

[30] The initial single ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances.  Leave was granted to add a further ground of appeal, namely, “that the sentence was imposed without jurisdiction because the appellant was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment on count 2 when the maximum penalty available was seven years imprisonment”.[11]  There is no doubt that there was such an error.

[31] Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) has submitted, however, that the error does not vitiate the sentences which were properly imposed on the other counts.  It is argued that the error in relation to count 2 is merely an oversight and does not affect the assessment of the seriousness of the offending and the appropriate level for the head sentence.  It was also argued that the learned sentencing judge understood the effect of the maximum sentence which could be imposed in relation to the prostitution offences which was 14 years and that because that could be imposed in relation to five of the offences, rather than six, it did not affect the sentencing process.  It was also argued that this is a different situation to the situation in R v Alwis[12] where the sentencing judge was misinformed about the applicable maximum, or R v Zotos[13] where the error affected the length of the sentence to be served.

[32] In this regard, I note the decision of Baxter v The Queen[14] where it was held that a misstatement of the maximum penalty in the course of sentencing is an important error but that the Court must be satisfied not only that there has been a material error but that some other sentence is warranted in law and should have been passed.

[33] There is no doubt that the learned sentencing judge in imposing a sentence of 11 years for count 2, imposed a sentence which was excessive as the maximum penalty available was seven years imprisonment.  It is clear that count 2 related to procuring prostitution simpliciter and not procuring prostitution of a young person.  Accordingly, it would appear that the learned sentencing judge did not actually appreciate that the count of procuring prostitution of an adult attracted a significantly lower sentence.  The judge when imposing the sentence treated the six counts as a group without differentiating in relation to count 2.  Only five counts attracted such a penalty.  In my view such an error is a significant error and has infected the whole sentencing process.

[34] In my view not only has there been a material error in this case but I also consider that some other sentence is indeed warranted because undue reliance was placed on a number of decisions which had a number of distinguishing factors.  The cases relied on at sentence, namely R v KAK,[15] R v P[16] and R v TR & FV; ex parte Attorney-General,[17] were clearly distinguishable on a number of grounds but particularly because they all involved incidents of physical coercion or involved a family member.  In my view it was also significant that there were only five offences of procuring prostitution of a young person and not six.  I consider that some other and lesser sentence may have been imposed given there were five counts and not six which attracted a penalty of maximum 14 years imprisonment.  Accordingly, I consider that the sentencing discretion must be exercised afresh.

What sentence should be imposed?

[35] In coming to an appropriate penalty, it is clear that the applicant became involved with five young, vulnerable women over a five year period and facilitated their engagement in prostitution with her and on her behalf.  She essentially facilitated the acts of prostitution that the young women engaged in and she introduced them to clients, many of whom were her regular customers.  She also supplied the girls with drugs.  There is no doubt that great psychological harm was caused to the girls and this has been evidenced by the victim impact statements from four of them.  All of the complainants were given drugs and alcohol at a very young age and their interpersonal development was severely disturbed by their involvement with the applicant.  I accept, therefore, that the offending had a serious impact on all of the complainants.

[36] It is clear that the offending occurred over a five year period but that three of the girls were involved for shorter periods of between six months and a year.  There is no doubt that all the young girls were vulnerable and at risk.  It must be acknowledged however that they all voluntarily formed friendships with the applicant and freely chose to live with her.  There is no doubt that they all left home and that their education was disrupted.  It is not alleged however that the applicant was the sole reason for the complainants’ actions in this regard and it must be acknowledged that the girls all came from disturbed backgrounds.  All of the girls were exposed to great risk, including physical danger and the risk of sexual diseases and pregnancy.  One of the girls in fact fell pregnant.  Whilst there are no known significant financial gains to the applicant, it is clear that all of the complainants received very little financial reward.

[37] In terms of mitigating factors it is clear that none of the complainants were threatened or were coerced or forced to engage in the sexual activities although some felt there was economic pressure to do so.  The applicant herself also had a history of abusive relationships and drug use and she had a learning disability, probable low IQ and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.  It was also clear that the applicant whilst mature was lacking in life skills and has had a chaotic and prejudicial upbringing.

[38] There is no doubt that the applicant was entitled to a discount for a plea of guilty, although the plea was not at an early stage.  It was also acknowledged in Mr Perros’s report that the applicant was a moderate risk of reoffending.

[39] In terms of comparable sentences a number of sentences were relied on at the sentencing hearing, none of which are directly comparable.  They do however provide some guidance.  The three decisions are R v KAK,[18] R v P[19] and R v TR & FV; exparte A-G (Qld).[20]  I accept that all of the sentences deal with significantly different factual situations.

[40] In KAK, the offences involved the defendant’s natural daughter who had been prostituted from the age of nine.  In that decision the defendant was prosecuted under Commonwealth legislation for trafficking in a child (count 1), procuring a young person to engage in prostitution (count 2), four counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 (counts 5, 8, 10 and 11) and 14 counts of procuring a child under 16 to commit an indecent act with the circumstances of aggravation that the child was a lineal descendant.  On five of the counts there was an additional aggravating circumstance that the child was under 12.

[41] The sentences imposed were:

• one count of trafficking – nine years imprisonment;
• one count of procuring a young person to engage in prostitution – nine years imprisonment was also imposed;
• four counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 – seven years imprisonment; and
• on all other counts – three years imprisonment.

[42] The sentences were to be served concurrently and a parole eligibility date was fixed at a date four years from the date of sentence.  The maximum penalties for counts 1 and 2 were 25 and 14 years imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for the maintaining offences was life imprisonment and the maximum penalty for the indecent treatment offences was 20 years imprisonment.  When the complainant was nine years of age, her mother masturbated a number of customers in her presence and the complainant was required to massage naked customers and at the defendant’s request masturbated some customers.  The maintaining counts involved the provision by the complainant to repeat customers of sexual services which consisted of either masturbation and/or fellatio.  She would be either fully or partly undressed and the customers were naked.  She was frequently indecently touched by the customers and one of the customers took photos of the naked complainant and she was required to take a video recording of the defendant and a customer engaging in sexual activity.

[43] In that case the complainant and defendant were often together in a room when a customer would interact sexually with one of them.  None of the offending involved vaginal or anal penetration but it is clear that the defendant had corrupted and sexualised the complainant and she was required to engage with clients before and after school and that there were occasions when she was providing sexual services three to four times a week.  There was significant cooperation with authorities, including s 13A cooperation.  The defendant also had no prior criminal history and a low risk of recidivism.  In that decision it was clear that the sentencing discretion did miscarry in relation to the s 13A cooperation.  Accordingly the discretion was exercised afresh.

[44] In relation to count 1, a sentence of seven years was substituted for a sentence of nine years.  In relation to count 2, a sentence of seven years was also substituted for a sentence of nine years imprisonment.  A parole eligibility date was then fixed at three years and six months.  The other terms of imprisonment were otherwise confirmed.

[45] In R v P the complainant regularly engaged in prostitution which was organised by the defendant and the complainant’s mother which commenced when she was 14 or 15.  The defendant would drive her to the outcalls and other customers were serviced by her at her parents’ home.  The defendant was particularly violent towards the complainant and her younger brothers.  The defendant was also charged with rape and sodomy.  At first instance an effective sentence of 18 years was imposed and a sentence of eight years imprisonment was imposed in relation to the prostitution offence, but because of totality factors, it had been essentially reduced from a 10 year sentence.  Significantly, the President stated:

“[32]In respect of the prostitution offences, it is comforting to know there are no comparable sentences. The offences clearly are extremely serious examples, involving as they did an under-age and innocent girl of 15, who was drafted into prostitution by her stepfather of eleven years. The appropriate sentence in respect of the prostitution offences, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment, is in the range of 8-10 years. Because of the orders ultimately to be made in this case, there is no reason to interfere with the eight year sentence imposed, which is in any case within the appropriate range.” (my emphasis)

[46] In my view the offending in R v P was far worse given the brutality shown by the defendant to the complainant and the fact that he was in a position of trust as he was a stepfather to her.  The decision in R v TK & FV involved a victim who was between 12 and 13 years of age, where the father also maintained a sexual relationship with her and raped her.  In that case a sentence of 10 years was imposed on the prostitution charge.

[47] I consider that an analysis of those cases indicates the offending in those cases was of a nature which was far more serious offending than the offending here and was of a different character.  Because of those factors those cases really provided very little assistance and were clearly distinguishable given they involved family relationships, or physical abuse and coercion.  This case was also different given there were five complainants and because the offending took place over a lengthy period of five years.

[48] Significantly in the present case there was no hint of coercion or physical threats or abuse.  The girls all voluntarily moved in with the applicant.  In at least two of the cases the complainants’ families lived in the same street.  On one occasion at least the applicant lived with one of the families.  The young women therefore were not isolated or removed from their families and there must have been some interaction between the families and the applicant given that fact.  The applicant was, as the psychologist stated, in many ways an older version of the vulnerable young women.  I consider that the offending in this case occurred against a background of unique factual matters.

[49] I consider that the maximum penalty is indeed required in cases of the very worst kind and this case was, not in my view, a case of the very worst kind.  The young women in this case were not children but were worldly teenagers who well knew what the applicant did for a living.  As the psychologist, Peter Perros said, “the girls were not – were not sort of naïve about their involvement in prostitution.”[21]

[50] There is no doubt that the sentencing exercise in this case was particularly difficult because of all of those factors.  However as the President stated in R v P in that case the appropriate sentence in respect of the prostitution offences, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment, is in the range of eight to10 years.  I consider that the sentence which should be imposed in this case for Counts 1, 38, 60, 69, 72 should be a sentence of nine years.  I would impose concurrent sentences of seven years in relation to the remaining counts on the indictment.  The applicant should be eligible for parole after serving one-third.  As 785 days of pre-sentence custody were declared, on my calculation the date that the applicant is eligible for parole is fixed at 24 November 2014.