TERRIFYING ORDEAL: A former stepfather harassed his teenage victim for more than a year after she escaped years of abuse.
TERRIFYING ORDEAL: A former stepfather harassed his teenage victim for more than a year after she escaped years of abuse. iStock

'Jilted lover' stepdad's terrifying obsession with teen

A STEPFATHER behaved like a "jilted lover" towards his teenage victim after she ended a sexual relationship he started when she was aged five.

The Nambour man launched a year-long onslaught of abuse and violent threats against his victim, her family, friends and boys he believed she had sex with after the girl "resisted" his advances when she reached Year 8.

This followed an eight-year period during which the man was convicted of maintaining a sexual relationship with the girl, and of committing seven specific sexual offences against her between January 2009 and December 2011.

A Maroochydore District Court jury found the man guilty of the offences in a seven-day re-trial last year, but the man appealed his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Queensland in May.

The appeal decision reveals a frightening timeline of harassment and stalking from October 2012 to January 2014.

This included threats to exact his "revenge" on the girl for "ruining his life" when she distanced herself from him.

The man argued his was the behaviour was of an "over-protective stepfather" rather than the manifestation of an "ongoing sexual interest", as the prosecution had argued.

The appeal document states the man's access to the girl became progressively more limited after he split with the victim's mother in 2009, but that he continued to care for his victim and the son he shared with his former de-facto.

Though the physical sexual offending had stopped, the man's obsession and jealousies surrounding her sexuality reared on 11 separate occasions between October 2012 and January 2014.

Provoked by seeing the complainant walking to a birthday party with friends, including one male, the appellant accused the girl of trying to "hook up" with the boy and described the party guests as "sluts".

Months later in March, the girl was at a friend's house when her former stepfather was seen in the yard.

He then sent the friend a Facebook message which accused both girls of being lesbians and suggested the friend's father had a "good perve" on the complainant.

Over the following months, the man bombarded the girl's mother with aggressive texts and phone calls asking invasive questions about her daughter's sexuality.

He repeatedly called her a "slut", directly and to her mother, and one night appeared at the girl's bedroom seeking an admission she was having boys over to have sex with.

On October 2013 he collected his son and parked outside the neighbour's house where he shouted profanities and accused the man of being a "paedophile".

Later he text the mother, "[the complainant] must dance around naked in front of her window for [the neighbour] and she probably likes it".

He suggested the neighbour was paying the mother to "let him have sex with her too, and I bet she loves it, f*****g w***e".

He then admitted he "couldn't help" watching her undress through her window weeks earlier, and added he "turned his head".

A month later he threatened to buy a gun, hunt down and kill a man, kill himself and "track [the complainant] down and get his revenge".

In November 2013, the man told the girl's mother "she [the complainant] ruined my life when she decided not to have anything to do with me, I'm going to make sure I ruin her life".

Though the man admitted to the harassment, he argued when the girl reached Year 8 she began to go "off the rails" and got involved with the wrong people.

He claimed he had seen two of his daughters follow the same path to their own detriment, and he was trying to "keep in touch with what was happening" with the stepdaughter.

His appeal was on three grounds surrounding the harassment evidence, which he ultimately argued should not have been considered proof of the alleged sexual offending for which he was found guilty.

Judge Fraser, who presided over the appeal, said in the context of the Crown's case he could not discern any "rational basis" for thinking there might have been any protective purpose underlying any of the items of conduct the appellant described in the harassment evidence".

He aligned with the prosecution's case that his behaviour manifested the man's "ongoing sexual interest" in the girl.

"The harassment evidence was therefore admissible to prove that the appellant had such an ongoing sexual interest in the complainant as to make it more likely that he committed earlier sexual offences alleged against him," Judge Fraser stated.

On September 14, Judge Fraser ordered the appeal be dismissed and Judge Gotterson and President Sofronoff agreed with the order and reasoning.