3 In early 2003, [V], a 38 year old female advertised that she had two rooms available for rent in her home, where she lived with her four year old son. She interviewed and accepted two persons, one of whom was the appellant, as tenants of these rooms. Both took up occupancy shortly afterwards.
4 On Sunday 11 April 2004, V requested the appellant to move out of the house.[1] Her stated reason for termination of the arrangement was that during the previous three weeks, his behaviour towards her had become increasingly verbally aggressive. He, in turn, later asserted that tension had developed between them by reason of V's failure to repay money that she had borrowed from him. Whatever may have been the precise circumstances, he ceased occupancy of his room on 23 April 2004.
5 Being required to quit the house produced an extraordinary degree of anger in the appellant and he commenced to harbour ideas of exacting vengeance upon her. He was working for a bricklayer at Mackinnon at the time, and talked about this possibility with a fellow employee, Lachlan James Tihema, in a series of conversations that, according to Tihema, commenced about two weeks prior to 7 May 2004; that is, almost immediately after leaving the house. The two men reached agreement that the appellant would rape V and that Tihema would capture the events on videotape. The appellant then borrowed a video recorder from his employer for this purpose, stating that he wanted to send a recording of himself to his family in New Zealand.
6 V, who had no inkling of any of this and who regarded the appellant as a friend in spite of their earlier difficulties, spoke regularly to him on the telephone. Consequently, he was well acquainted with her movements and domestic arrangements.
7 In the week leading to 7 May, the appellant continued to communicate with V and, on the day of the offences, she asked him to visit her that evening to discuss a property venture in which they were both interested. This presented an ideal opportunity for the appellant to implement his plan. [2]
8 Accordingly, at around 2 p.m., on 7 May, Tihema received a telephone call from him, stating that the appellant would pick him up in about half an hour. A short time later, Tihema was collected from an hotel and the two men drove to Dandenong in a vehicle that the appellant had rented, apparently for the occasion. They went first to a disposals store where the appellant purchased two balaclavas, two bundles of nylon rope and gloves, and then to a nearby "adult" store where he bought several items, including an 18 inch double ended dildo, a vibrator, personal lubricant and, what was called a "domination set" containing handcuffs, a latex hood and a mouth gag. They returned to the disposals store and exchanged the balaclavas, earlier purchased, as the appellant decided that his would not adequately conceal his facial features. With the appellant driving, the men next travelled to a Dandenong supermarket where they obtained cigarettes, alcohol and shaving equipment.
9 So equipped they proceeded to V's home. In the course of this journey, the appellant gave Tihema instructions concerning what would happen once they were inside the house. The appellant was to be referred to as "Mick" and he directed Tihema to do most of the talking, as the appellant had a distinctive New Zealand accent. They also discussed such matters as the putting of their cigarette butts in their pockets after each cigarette smoked in the house, as they did not want to leave any forensic evidence that might result in their identification.
10 At approximately 4.50 p.m., the appellant parked the rental car some distance from V's house to which they walked, equipped with the video camera and the various items that they had purchased. The appellant was aware that V was due home shortly for, as already mentioned, he had spoken to her earlier that day. They entered the house, using a front door key that the appellant had had cut when residing at the premises and had retained without V's knowledge.
11 V arrived home at approximately 5.15 p.m. On entering her front door, she was confronted by a male wearing a balaclava and carrying a knife (Tihema). She was grabbed by the shoulders, shaken and then forced to the floor. She was told, "Don't fight, don't scream, otherwise you'll get this". The latex bondage hood was then placed over her head. V could see nothing, but became aware that there was someone else present when she heard another male voice (that of the appellant) coming from the lounge room. The two males had a conversation and she heard the other male say, "Tie her up". V was instructed to get up from the floor. As she was doing so, she was struck heavily across the back of the head. Her hands were then tied tightly, using the nylon rope that the appellant and his confederate had brought with them and she was walked into the lounge room.
12 V was experiencing breathing difficulties at this stage; there being only two small apertures in the bondage mask and she was asthmatic. She informed her attackers of this problem and asked for her Ventolin spray. Tihema retrieved it from her handbag, lifted up the bottom of the hood and sprayed Ventolin into her mouth. V later told the investigating police that she made every effort to remain calm. Among her concerns throughout the episode was the possibility that the stress of the situation and the mask she had been forced to wear may have induced an acute and dangerous asthmatic attack.
13 In an attempt to ensure that she remained unaware of the appellant's participation in what was taking place, Tihema asked V whether she was expecting anyone to call at the house. She replied that she was, and that his name was Tony. She was asked about his physical size, as if this person was a stranger to Tihema, and then pushed over to a dining table, located in a room adjacent to the lounge room. On reaching the table, her legs were tied to its legs, using more of the nylon cord, and she was positioned so that she was lying face down across the table top. Her hands were then placed above her head and tied to the legs at the other end, on either side.
14 I do not propose to set out in detail that part of the truly horrifying violation and abuse which V was able to describe and to which she was then subjected over a period of approximately an hour and forty-five minutes. She was repeatedly penetrated, orally, vaginally and anally, with the appellant's fingers, the dildo, the vibrator and the appellant's penis. On some occasions, she was simultaneously penetrated vaginally and anally with different combinations of them. The appellant licked her vagina with his tongue as some of these actions were taking place. Her body was turned and re-tied a number of times to facilitate the appellant's engagement in different forms of violation.
15 At one point, her hand was placed on the appellant's penis as he attempted to force her to masturbate him. Most of her clothing was cut. She was tormented with a knife or scissors being drawn over her naked body, and humiliated by having her pubic hair cut with scissors. Her pleas of distress and pain were ignored, or she was told to "shut up" by Tihema. At one stage, when she complained that she was in pain as a consequence of the anal insertion of the dildo, the appellant struck her about the face with it. On another, he took it from her anus and forced it into her mouth.
16 She told the police: