108 In the Court's assessment, the evidence establishes that there is a risk that the offender will be an ongoing danger to others.
109 It is true that the offender's record does not contain convictions for offences of violence, but there is evidence that he has engaged in violent acts apart from Charlise's murder. Kallista Mutten told the jury on her oath that the offender assaulted her and smashed her mobile phone when she returned to the Mount Wilson property on 13 January 2022. Although the offender disputed that he had assaulted Ms Mutten when she returned with his car, relying upon the absence of contemporaneous complaint or observations of injury by others to impugn Ms Mutten's claim, having listened to the aggressive rage with which the offender shouted threats to her voicemail and, bearing in mind the crime he had committed only a day or so before, I have no doubt that he assaulted her as she deposed.
110 It is not at all unusual for a victim of domestic violence to conceal injuries inflicted by a partner, and to keep acts of violence to herself and even to deny an assault occurred. When Ms Mutten spoke to police on 14 January 2022 and when she was taken later that day to hospital, she did not know that the offender had murdered her child. She loved him and still regarded him as her fiancée. That she did not complain to the police about the assault upon her, or of the damage to her phone, and that she kept the bruising that had been caused covered by clothes so that hospital staff did not see them and denied any assault, is unsurprising in those circumstances. It is behaviour consistent with the dynamics of domestic violence, well known to the criminal courts.
111 I do not regard Ms Mutten's failure to complain or display bruises to others as undermining the truthfulness of her evidence, particularly, as I have said, in the context of the explosive rage of the voicemail threats recorded in Ex. H made only a very short time before Ms Mutten said she was assaulted by the offender.
112 The viciousness of the offender's crime is itself evidence of the grave danger the offender presents to others and may well go on presenting. The Court can only conclude that the offender must be an individual without the humanity,
