Revealed: Why Paul Anthony Wardell was jailed for 14 years for abusing two teenage girls

It was the jail sentence that rocked Australia’s horse fraternity after once-revered stockman Paul Wardell was sent away for abusing two teenage girls. 16 months later, it can be revealed why.

Gloucester stockman and horse trainer Paul Anthony Wardell was convicted of sexually abusing two teenage girls under his authority. Photo: Facebook

Disgraced former horse trainer and breeder Paul Wardell had abused his position of trust when he continuously assaulted two vulnerable teenage girls under his authority.

Wardell was sentenced to a maximum 14 years’ jail in October 2021 after being convicted of 23 offences relating to the separate sexual abuse of the two teenagers while they worked on his famous Gloucester property.

But the full remarks from NSW District Court Judge Jonathon Priestly, who sentenced the then 68-year-old Wardell to a minimum non-parole period of nine years, had not been publicly released after Wardell had indicated his intention to appeal the conviction and sentence.

Now, 16 months after the sentencing and following the deadline of any appeal process, Judge Priestly’s written remarks can be reported for the first time.

In them, the judge repeated that Wardell’s position of authority was an aggravating factor in his offending.

Gloucester stockman and horse trainer Paul Anthony Wardell was sentenced to a maximum 14 years’ jail for abusing two teenage girls under his authority. Photo: Facebook

“The victims were young women eager to pursue careers in the horse industry and the offender was a well-established figure in that industry,” the judgment said.

“The victims were under his authority and often without company other than himself.

Paul Wardell

“The age of the victims when they first came into contact with the offenders shows that they were young people, and based on their background, with little worldly experience.

“The victims were as a result vulnerable to the unlawful acts of the offender occurring to them.

“The victims looked to the offender for education, instruction and assistance. Instead the offender took advantage of the situation to carry out the proven offences.”

Wardell had spent decades with a revered reputation among Australia’s stock horse fraternities, was a sought-after instructor to budding young riders and a highly-acclaimed judge at the country’s biggest shows.

Shania Madden (left) and Ashley Whiting outside Coffs Harbour District Court. Both were abused by Gloucester stockman Paul Anthony Wardell. Photo: Jasmine Minhas

His victims, Ashley Whiting and Shania Madden, were widely supported when they publicly outed themselves by allowing The Newcastle News to identify them in court proceedings.

The pair continue to give The Newcastle News permission to identify them in proceedings.

Wardell was found guilty by a jury of four counts of aggravated indecent assault upon Ms Whiting between 2012 and 2014 and 19 charges – including six counts of aggravated indecent assault and 13 charges of aggravated sexual assault – of Ms Madden in 2017 and 2018.

Judge Priestly said Wardell’s abuse of trust also related to his victim’s parents, with the mother’s of both girls visiting Wardell’s property to check out where their daughters would be living.

“There is no doubt a degree of trust in a caring parent, (as was the case here, as evidenced, among other matters, by driving the daughter to the property), placing a child in the environment of a stranger in the circumstances of this case,” he said.

Judge Priestly also listed each of the offences, which included Wardell abusing one of the girls twice on his 65th birthday and another time when he committed the offence in the back of a horse float while a relative of one of the girls was asleep in the cabin.

Paul Wardell was once a revered figure in Australia’s stock horse community, known for his abilities as a trainer, rider, coach and judge at the country’s largest shows.

During another incident, Wardell had told Ms Whiting: “You work for me, if you don‘t like it, leave, but where are you going to go, you have nowhere else“.

On another occasion, Wardell had told Ms Madden: “Oh come give me a squeeze”.

But when his victim had said no, he replied: “Well I‘m not asking you, it’s an order”.

Judge Priestly noted Wardell had continued to deny his guilt but had indicated he would participate in a treatment program “though I query the purpose of this in his state of denial though doubtless programs can be tailored to address that issue also”.

“That said the report goes on to note the offender does not believe he has treatment needs,” Judge Priestly said.

“In my view this report provides a helpful statement of the background of the offender but it does not really assist him in mitigating his sentence.

“It shows a total lack of remorse and a total failure to acknowledge his wrongdoing.

“Of benefit to him it does show and I find that he is a low risk of reoffending.

“Given the circumstances of his offending occurring in the course of conducting his business when the victims were in the vulnerable states that they were, then if when he is back in the community he no longer conducts his business the opportunity for and likelihood of offending will be almost entirely reduced.”

Judge Priestly also highlighted the statements of two people who had been “in positions similar to the victim victims and who attest to the good character of the offender.

He said one of the stated that the offender had always treated young women with kindness and respect.

“She has never thought he acted inappropriately,” the judgement read.

A second woman said she considered Wardell to be affectionate “but not in a sexual way”.

“She actually says that there was conduct of hugs and kisses on the cheek and touching on the knee which she was not entirely comfortable with but that the offender explained it as being normal and thereafter she had no concerns,” Judge Priestly said.

“This is doubtless put forward to show the offender in a good light.

“It certainly shows that he had the trust of the deponent and that he never acted towards her in the way that he acted towards the victims.

“It is also open to be viewed as being somewhat ambiguous and perhaps some kind of grooming behaviour.

“I do not however take that evidence into account adversely to the offender but rather as evidence of a person who is affectionate and acting so far as the deponent is concerned within socially accepted limits.”