Man who committed “appalling” offences against partner loses parole appeal

A man convicted of rape after forcing his partner into a number of degrading acts - including dragging her into the street with a sex toy shoved in her mouth while yelling that she was available for sex - has lost his fight against a parole decision.

The man’s appeal has been rejected on all grounds.

An offender who dragged his partner into the street with a sex toy shoved in her mouth while yelling that she was available for sex has lost his appeal to a decision denying parole.

The man, who can’t be identified to protect the victim’s identity, subjected the woman to a series of “appalling, humiliating, degrading and disgraceful” actions, the Supreme Court heard.

The woman had confided in the offender that while she had been visiting New Zealand another man had taken sexual advantage of her, the court heard.

The offender became irate and made her shower while he violently rubbed her face, arms, body and legs with a kitchen scourer which he forced into her vagina, the court heard.

Over a period of hours he spat on the woman, called her degrading names and threatened to burn her with a lighter while flicking cigarettes at her and slapping her, the court heard.

About a month later he repeatedly hit her back and arms with a meat cleaver causing her little finger to fracture, the court heard.

He then made her strip and walk on all fours “like a dog”.

The man drove the victim to her father’s house and made her walk naked up to the house on all fours, the court heard.

“The applicant inserted a sex toy in the complainant’s mouth, took her into the street and began yelling words to the effect that the complainant was available for sex,” the court heard.

A month later, he made her sit naked on a tiled floor for hours and put a knife under her feet and told her to stand on her toes, the court heard.

Following a jury trial in the District Court he was convicted of rape relating to the scourer, two counts of torture, assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, assault and deprivation of liberty and sentenced to nine years jail.

With the addition of some drug offending the man is serving a sentence of 10 years and six months, which carried a parole eligibility date of May 2021 and a full-time discharge date of April 2028.

His first parole application was refused and unsuccessfully appealed.

His second parole application was knocked back earlier this year and the man launched an appeal in the Supreme Court.

He argued there had been a breach of natural justice, the parole decision was affected by fraud, contrary to law and an improper exercise of power.

He also complained that Queensland Corrective Services failed to make available a rehabilitative program suitable for offenders who denied sexual wrongdoing and this failure had a direct effect on the Parole Board’s decision to refuse parole.

The man said he had a human right to maintain his innocence in relation to sexual offending and QCS was obliged to provide a “deniers program” involving treatment for men who had been convicted of a sexual offence but maintained their innocence. The man denies his sexual offending, the court heard.

The Parole Board said it did not refuse his application for parole merely because he was denying his guilt or had refused to participate in certain programs. It said it considered a range of factors including his resistance to exploring aspects of his offending and was aggressive towards facilitators when challenged by them.

Justice Frances Williams determined all of the appeal grounds failed.