Diana Agnes Molnar and Eva Maria Sara were this morning found not guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court of permitting a child to provide commercial sexual services.

It’s a tragic case that brought the territory’s Prostitution Act squarely into conflict with the Criminal Code.

Magistrate Peter Morrison said the prosecution failed to disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused sisters didn’t reasonably believe the girl was old enough.

The dead girl cannot be named but used the working name “Amanda” on the last night of her life, when she began a shift at the Exotic Studio brothel in Fyshwick.

Amanda had been hired earlier that day – September 14, 2008 – and was picked up from outside her home in the evening to start her first shift.

There was no dispute the girl provided commercial sexual services at Exotic Studio after starting work that night.

But Amanda was aged just 17 at the time.

Her body was discovered in a bedroom at the premises the following day.

During a hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court earlier this year Ms Molnar and Ms Sara swore they believed the girl was older than 18.

But the court heard neither woman thought to check the girl’s ID.

Ms Sara said she took a call from Amanda on the afternoon of the 14^th.

The defendant said the caller said she was 19 years old and was looking for work.

“When somebody rings up asking for a job, and I ask them questions regarding, have they worked before, how old are they, I take at face value that what they say is what it is in reality,’’ Ms Sara said.

Ms Molnar, who had started working the night shift by the time Amanda arrived at the parlour, sat down with the new girl and ''assessed'' her.

''First of all a general assessment of the way she looked, and then when we spoke the way she spoke, her level of maturity, her natural demeanour,'' the defendant said in April.

''She just did not act or look under 18. I had no doubt.''

Ms Molnar said she had asked prospective workers for identification in the past but not Amanda, and it was her call to allow the teen to work there.

''Because I had no doubt that she was, in my mind, it was unquestionable, that she was over 18, she was too mature,'' the defendant told the court.

The case ultimately hinged on an apparently conflict between two key pieces of legislation – the Criminal Code and the Prostitution Act.

The Criminal Code provides for a defence of mistake of fact; if raised the Crown must disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s had a reasonable belief.

The charge Ms Molnar and Ms Sara faced was laid under the Prostitution Act, carried strict liability and offered a defence where the defendants took “reasonable steps” to check the girl’s age.

But the “reasonable steps’’ defence would have placed the burden of proof – on the balance of probabilities - on the shoulders of the defendants.

The defence under the Criminal code, therefore, raised the yardstick for the prosecution.

The defence under the Prostitution Act, however, made the defendants’ task harder.

Mr Morrison ruled the Criminal Code defence was available because the charge carried strict liability, rather than absolute liability.

Had Amanda been younger than 12, Ms Molnar and Ms Sara would have faced absolute liability and would have had to prove they took “reasonable steps”.

The magistrate said the defendants, giving evidence, were “at times evasive and reluctant to concede what I would regard as a commonsense proposition” – that it’s sometimes hard to precisely tell the age of a young person.

But Mr Morrison said he was satisfied Amanda deliberately tried to pass her self off as older than 18.

“It is highly likely that [the girl] knew that she would not be permitted to work at Exotic Studio unless she was over 18,” the magistrate said.

“Whatever her reasons, it is apparent she wished to work there, and she probably lied about her age to achieve that end.”

He said regardless of his reservations about the defendants’ evidence he had to consider Amanda’s attempts to deceive the brothel staff and – most crucially – that the prosecution carried the burden of proof.

Mr Morrison awarded costs to the defence.