'Beast of Blenheim' Stewart Murray Wilson claims Crown abused judicial process over latest charges

Stewart Murray Wilson is appealing his latest group of convictions and prison term. Photo / Michael Craig

The Beast of Blenheim continues to deny his sexual offending, the latest of which came after police reinvestigated him in 2016 and accused him of raping three more women and a then girl in the 1970s and early 1980s. Sam Hurley reports on his case from the Court of Appeal.

Warning: Graphic content and sexual violence themes.

Stewart Murray Wilson claims the Crown abused the judicial process by charging him with further historical offending in spite of a stay on proceedings by the Attorney-General nearly 20 years ago.

Police reinvestigated the sex offender in 2016, which led to several new charges.

He then went to trial last year and was found guilty of raping a woman, a then 9-year-old girl, and of attempting to rape a third woman during the 1970s and early 1980s in Wellington, Hamilton and Auckland.

He was found not guilty of raping a fourth woman - the mother of the young girl.

Because he was sentenced to a concurrent term of two years and four months' imprisonment by Justice Graham Lang last November, Wilson also had to leave his two-bedroom cottage on the Whanganui Prison grounds.

He had lived there since being released in 2012 - with an extended supervision order and the most stringent conditions ever imposed on a New Zealander - after he was sentenced in 1996 to 21 years' imprisonment for drugging, assaulting and raping several women, as well as charges of stupefying and bestiality.

Today, at the Court of Appeal in Wellington, the now 72-year-old challenged both his convictions and Justice Lang's sentence which had stemmed from the 2016 investigation.

Court of Appeal president Justice Stephen Kós, Justice Mark Woolford and Justice Rachel Dunningham heard the appeal and have reserved their decision.

Stewart Murray Wilson pictured during his sentencing in the Auckland High Court last year. Photo / Brett Phibbs

At the time of the 1996 trial Wilson had also faced a further 23 charges alleging sexual crimes against several other women.

But this second indictment was not used because the then law limited the number of charges which could be contained in a single indictment.

In 2000, the Attorney-General entered a stay of proceedings on the second indictment.

Today, Wilson's lawyer Andrew McKenzie said, effectively, the Crown had "called it quits in 2000".

McKenzie had also applied for a stay on the new proceedings against Wilson before last year's trial, but was unsuccessful.

He argued the stay of the second indictment in 2000 created a "prosecutorial estoppel" rendering it an abuse of process for the new charges to continue.

McKenzie advanced the estoppel argument again today, along with an issue of identification by one of the victims.

Justice Lang has also commented on the 2000 stay and said: "The reasons for the Attorney-General's decision [are] not entirely clear."

If Wilson had been charged in 1996 or 2000 with the additional historical offending, McKenzie said, then he would have already completed his sentence.

McKenzie argued this was further compounded by the police's delay in prosecuting Wilson for the additional offences.

"The police had it for 40 something years," he said. "This is just the police not getting around to charging [Wilson]."

"This was all done and dusted in 2000."

Stewart Murray Wilson looks on as his lawyer Andrew McKenzie addresses the court during his trial last October. Photo / Michael Craig

The reasons for the delay in trial, Justice Lang has said, could be attributed, in part, to the police failing to investigate the allegations at the time.

"Although [one of the women] went to the police immediately after the alleged offending against her in 1976, the police took no steps at that time," he said.

"They did not begin to investigate the allegations until [she] contacted them again following the publicity surrounding Wilson's trial in 1996."

One of Wilson's victims also said detectives joked and treated her "like a piece of scum" just hours after he tried to rape her in the 1970s.

When police revisited Wilson's offending two years ago they were unable to find any paperwork of the woman's complaint from 1976.

Police have declined to comment to the Herald about the delay, lack of paperwork or why Wilson was reinvestigated in 2016 while the case remains before the Court of Appeal.

Stewart Murray Wilson was dubbed the "Beast of Blenheim" after being convicted of multiple rapes in 1996. Photo / Supplied

Another of Wilson's victims only came forward after she saw Wilson on trial in 1996.

She said Wilson turned around and glared at her from the dock as she sat in the public gallery.

"I was told [by police] Murray Wilson couldn't be charged at that time [for the crimes against me] because he was already on charges," she told the jury last year.

Her counsellor then urged her to make a complaint with police.

At Wilson's trial last year the jury was also prevented from knowing the criminal history of the man standing before them.

Justice Lang had dismissed the Crown's application to lead propensity evidence and also suppressed his infamous nickname - the Beast of Blenheim.

"It is well-known he offended against woman, girls, animals - that's why it's the beast," McKenzie said of the nickname at a pre-trial hearing.

Today he added: "I would've been surprised if there hadn't been someone on that jury who knew of his name and perhaps even his previous offences."

Justice Lang also said media coverage of Wilson during the past decade may have tainted the jury pool, "if only by the nickname the media have used".

The Court of Appeal judges reserved their decision after today's hearing. Photo / Mark Mitchell

In a handwritten letter to Justice Lang before November's sentencing, Wilson said he was "sorry for my past action and any harm caused".

But, the Beast continued to deny knowledge of the offending.

"I do not have any recall of the people at the trial," he wrote. "I put this down to the shock treatments I received."

Wilson said: "I am aware you know I have been in custody since 1994 and the 10-year supervision order on top of the 21-year sentence."

He said while living in his cottage he had not offended and was "growing veges" and working with a church.

"I am not putting this before you as an excuse. All I want to say is I am sorry ... Living in hell is not a good place to be."

Wilson said since the suppression order was lifted he had been placed in a protection unit with a 23-hour lockdown.

"I get no sunlight ... no radio, no TV and no daily newspaper to know what day it is or time of day. Only silence and solitude.

"I want to go home to the little house on the prairie Wanganui, my garden to keep supplying the churches and others with veges, and feed the magpies the kilo of cheese a week."

Before going back to jail, Stewart Murray Wilson was living at his cottage on the grounds of Whanganui Prison. Photo / File

The majority of Wilson's historical offending - for which he was sentenced more than 20 years ago - occurred before New Zealand's courts could impose a minimum period of imprisonment.

"A sentence of two years four months is hardly a deterrent to you or others but is only being imposed because of the 1996 sentence," Justice Lang said at Wilson's sentencing.

At Wilson's sentencing in March 1996, the late Justice Richard Heron said the 21-year prison term was "a very long one in this country's history" but "justice requires nothing less".

An appeal of the 1996 matters by Wilson has already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The handwritten letter from Wilson for his 2018 sentencing: