A man jailed for forcing his de facto wife to commit sexual acts with her nine-year-old son, filming it and savagely beating her, will remain behind bars indefinitely.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The man, who can not be named for legal reasons, was jailed for 16 years in 2001.
He had forced his partner to perform indecent acts as he filmed, with the aim of setting up a pornography business, in a series of actions described as "depraved and despicable".
He forced her into group sex and to commit sexual acts with her young son, who he also sexually abused, as well as threatening her with a garden fork "because he was dissatisfied with the standard of the complainant's performance during those indecent acts."
"In the 20 years in which I have been on this Court, I have not seen a case in which the conduct of the accused was worse than this," Judge Bruce McPherson said, in denying his appeal.
"To crown this career of appalling behaviour, the applicant finally subjected the woman complainant to a prolonged and savage beating."
The attack left her with brain damage, face fractures, and a left ear so badly damaged it needed plastic surgery.
The man was convicted of indecently dealing with and maintaining a sexual relationship with a child as well as assault occasioning bodily harm.
Even behind bars, the man refused to admit to any of his crimes, with the exception of bashing his partner. But he claimed the attack was to protect her son from her sexual assaults.
Two psychiatrists who assessed the prisoner, on two separate occasions, found he was an unacceptable risk of breaching any supervision order imposed.
The prisoner, having served two years in jail before his sentence, was due to be released in June 2015, before Supreme Court Justice Philip McMurdo granted an application for continuing detention.
He found there was an unacceptable risk the man would commit a serious sexual offence if released.
"The respondent's offending behaviour, his antisocial personality, the possibility that there is in his case an element of sadism or paedophilia, his denial of his sexual offending and the fact that he has not engaged in necessary treatment programs together combine to present that unacceptable risk," he said.
That decision, which had to be reviewed under law, was upheld in a judgement published on Wednesday, meaning the man would remain behind bars indefinitely.
"The respondent's general account to Dr Grant was one of placing blame everywhere but on himself accusing everyone of lying and at one stage saying it is all to do with race," Supreme Court Justice Susan Brown noted.
The man's counsel, since discharged, originally argued the use of amphetamines contributed to the crimes but the psychiatrists could not find any substantive.
As late as October 2016, after completing an early stage sexual offender rehabilitation program, the man continued to deny the sexual offences, ruling him unsuitable.
