Convicted rapist Wayne Astill was a prison officer for decades. Now more 30 women have emerged claiming he assaulted them too

Wayne Astill may be one of Australia’s worst serial sex offenders, as more than 30 additional alleged victims come forward and the government quietly settles their civil cases.

Ex-prison guard Wayne Astill at Downing Centre Court in Sydney. Picture: Dylan Coker/ NCA Newswire

More than 30 women have come forward alleging they were sexually assaulted by former NSW prison officer Wayne Astill, a convicted rapist who instilled terror inside the all-female Dillwynia Correctional Centre, where he preyed on inmates for years until his arrest in 2019.

The Weekend Australian can reveal that Corrective Services NSW has confidentially settled a number of legal actions brought against it by Astill’s victims, a ­development that cloaks each case in secrecy and prevents ­details of departmental failures being aired in court.

There have been so many women come forward with complaints of assault that the NSW Police Force has tasked detectives at the Sex Crimes Squad with launching a fresh investigation into Astill’s offending. If proven, Astill, who is serving a maximum of 23 years in prison, would be one of the worst serial sex offenders in recent state history.

Asked about the newly formed strike force, a police spokes­woman said: “As an investigation is under way, we are unable to provide comment.”

Legal firm Mills Oakley confirmed to The Weekend Australian that it has brought legal claims on behalf of 12 women alleging they were assaulted by Astill, and that it had been approached by a further 24 complainants.

On Friday its lawyers filed a group case, similar to a class ­action, in the NSW Supreme Court on behalf of at least seven women, all of whom allege they were sexually abused by Astill while they were incarcerated.

Astill’s conduct has been described as “absolutely unacceptable and completely ­deplorable”.

“Many of these complainants experienced a significant number of assaults over a prolonged ­period,” said Luke Geary, a partner at the firm. “We have been ­approached by a further 24 complainants and continue to receive new referrals, so this number is climbing.”

Mr Geary declined to comment on the specifics of any settlements, or to confirm whether he had been involved in their negotiation, pointing to the “confidentiality restraints” that are common in such cases.

Such restraints strictly limit any discussion of the payouts, why they were made, and any ­allegations against Astill or other prison officials, such as those who may have had knowledge of his conduct and failed to act accordingly. A Corrective Services NSW spokeswoman said: “We cannot comment on the status of legal proceedings against the state,” adding that the majority of its 10,000 staff uphold standards and “work tirelessly to keep the community safe”.

But with complainant numbers increasing and settlement negotiations continuing, criticism is also being levelled at the department’s low-balling on compensation payments, a product of outdated provisions within the NSW Civil Liabilities Act that appear to disadvantage victims.

Speaking broadly, Mr Geary said claims made by female prisoners were immediately devalued under the law because, essentially, they’re not viewed in the same way as other women.

“If these women were sexually assaulted in the same manner outside of custody, the law would treat them incredibly differently – that is, much more compassionately,” he said.

“The appalling catch in these cases is that the women were ­assaulted at the hands of a senior corrections officer who … but for his role and the custodial environment, would likely not have been able to carry out the offences. Rather than being rehabilitated for return to the community, they are now suffering considerable ongoing harm.”

Dominic Villa SC told The Weekend Australian that a significant problem with the law was that it restricted the recovery of damages for economic and non-economic loss. “No damages of any kind are payable unless the injury results in a degree of impairment of at least 15 per cent,” he said.

NSW Corrections Minister Anoulack Chanthivong did not respond to questions relating to the legislation, or whether it would be examined, but said ­Astill’s conduct was “absolutely unacceptable and completely ­deplorable”.

“I’ve asked the commissioner of NSW Corrective Services to ­report back to me on the actions he has taken to protect inmates and the community,” Mr Chanthivong said. He added that it would be inappropriate to comment on the “ongoing litigation” against the department.

A former NSW police officer, Astill arrived at Dillwynia from Parklea Correctional Centre in 2009, 10 years after he was first employed by Corrective Services. He was promoted to chief correctional officer in 2016 and worked in the centre’s high needs areas until his arrest three years later.

Charged with 51 offences, he pleaded not guilty to the majority at trial, the most grievous allegations being sexual intercourse without consent. The defence case was that the sex occurred but with the consent of the inmates, without any threats or violence.

Using that argument, Astill pleaded to seven charges of misconduct in public office. Those o­ffences saw him admit to breaches of code, such as having inappropriate, consensual sexual relationships, smuggling make-up, underwear and other contraband into the prison, and granting inmates access to his computer.

The jury rejected most of that argument, finding him guilty of the rape of two women and the ­indecent assault of five others, among other crimes against a further two victims. He was found not guilty of 17 other charges, ­including the rape of another woman. During one of the more extreme scenarios for which he was convicted, Astill pushed an inmate onto a desk and sexually assaulted her from behind. When it was over he said: “Have a shower. Don’t let the girls think there’s something going on.”

Astill denied having any physical contact with the women until he was shown recorded evidence.

Repeated assaults were committed against the same woman.

The woman’s name, and those of the other victims, were suppressed by the court.

The prosecution argued that the women were Astill’s prisoners, and several acquiesced and failed to report the assaults out of an enduring fear of his ­capabilities.

When Astill discovered a prisoner had filed a complaint, he called her to his office and, ­according to his trial, said words to the effect of: “I know you made a complaint about me … if that happens again there’ll be consequences for you.”

Eventually confronted about the sex acts, Astill denied having any physical contact with the women until he was shown recorded evidence obtained from inside the prison. Only then did he say the sex was consensual.

Consent was a point strongly advanced by Astill’s lawyer. He told jurors that a number of women came forward with allegations only after word of the ­Astill investigation spread through the jail “like wildfire”, causing a “cascading effect”. It was put to the jury that Astill placed “himself in a stupid position” that allowed him to be blackmailed and the subject of ­accusations. Efforts were made to contact his legal representative.