A convicted rapist could receive a softer sentence on appeal and be out of jail next week despite breaching strict orders imposed after he was released from behind bars previously, a court has heard.
In June, Simon Monteiro, also known as Simon Lowe, was handed a two year jail sentence after being convicted of breaching a five-year extended supervision order (ESO) imposed after he finished a 12 year sentence for aggravated sexual assault, larceny and destroying property.
According to court documents, the 55-year-old previously breached the order by using multiple computers, mobile phones, fake names, email addresses and social media applications includinxjmtzywg one that he used to search for the profile of a female corrective services officer up to 80 times.
As part of the ESO, Monteiro, who previously led a reportedly glamorous playboy lifestyle and boasted about having relationships with Mariah Carey and Barbara Hershey, was required to inform authorities of his use of the technology and he allegedly did not.
By allegedly buying and selling torches for profit without making a declaration, Monteiro was also found to have breached an employment condition of the order.
He appeared in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Wednesday to apply for bail while an appeal to have his most recent jail sentence reduced was before the courts.
The court previously heard Monteiro was appealing the sentence on the grounds it was too excessive and that he received inadequate legal representation.
Appearing via videolink from Cooma jail, Monteiro sat at a desk covered in documents as Justices Anthony Payne, Stephen Rothman and Ian Harrison attempted to explain a different route his legal proceedings could take.
During the awkward and at times bizarre exchange, Monteiro repeatedly interrupted the Justices and had to be told to “hang on” multiple times as he ranted about perceived injustices he claimed to have experienced at the hands of police, Crown prosecutors and judicial officers.
“Hang on one second, just let me finish … I think there is much to be said for your proposition that the sentence imposed was too long,” Justice Payne said as Monteiro tried to dominate proceedings.
“We are sympathetic, we are trying to help you.”
As Monteiro started to rattle off a long list of gripes he had with the ESO and handling of his case, Justice Payne said the court needed to deal with one problem at a time and when he used the phrase “if ever you are released”, Monteiro repeated the phrase back to him and said “I’d like you to say when I’m released, not if ever I was released”.
“If you were to release me next week, the five year (ESO) period starts from day one again,” Monteiro explained to the judges.
When Justice Rothman interjected and said “what’s left of the five year period starts again”, Monterio interjected and said “no, no no, we start from day one again – this is one of the problems with this horrific legislation”.
During another attempt to explain the choice Monteiro faced – to proceed with the bail hearing or go straight to a sentence appeal next week – Justice Harrison was interrupted again.
“It’s as plain as day you’re in jail at the moment, you want to get out,” Justice Harrison said.
“Two ways of that happening that are the most likely to occur soon are to deal with your bail application, which has some problems, or to deal with your appeal against the sentence.
“What Justice Payne was saying is, as he indicated without deciding it, there’s some merit in the suggestion your sentence is too long.
“If that was the case, depending on the decision of the court, there’s a prospect that you could be released next week.”
Determined to be heard, Monteiro continued to rant, claiming he had received “the biggest sentence ever handed down on nothing”.
“Helicopter flying doesn’t equal surfing, we speak English, I looked up what employment and business enterprise mean in the Oxford,” he said at one point.
“What would be the difference from going to Bunnings and buying a torch as opposed to me selling someone at Bunnings a torch? The operation is still a business transaction. A business enterprise isn’t employment.”
At one point, Monteiro started quoting Crown submissions back to the judges.
“The allegations of impropriety, this is alleged by myself of course, by the NSW Police and or the Crown are generalised and unsupported by probative evidence … moreover the matters before the court clearly speak to the applicant’s inability to comply with supervision orders and are informed by his history of non compliance with parole conditions and a further domestic violence offence whilst on parole for a serious charge of domestic violence,” he said.
Monteiro said prosecutors made his behaviour appear worse than it was as the Justices again tried to suggest it was in his interests to abandon the bail application hearing and let the court hear the sentencing appeal next week.
Justice Payne said much of what Monteiro was talking about was “irrelevant”.
“We are tentatively sympathetic to the submission you’re making,” he said.
“Please don’t think you need to go into the highways and byways of everything that’s happened to you about the ESO and your convictions.”
After the painstaking 30 minute exchange, Monteiro finally agreed to abandon the application for bail and let the court deal with the sentencing appeal on February 17.
“I was under duress … I was deprived of subpoenas,” he said in closing.
“My dad has cancer. I’m very worried about him and my uncle’s on his death bed as well. I’m very worried about him.
“I’m not who they’re painting, I’m a decent human being actually.”
Earlier this month, it emerged Monteiro was under fire for threatening a Supreme Court Justice who had to consider his multiple applications for the court to make orders for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones said Monteiro made “various scurrilous allegations against judges, lawyers and police as well as a threat to create a website attacking me in the event that the matter is determined adversely to him”.
“Mr Monteiro is now on notice that the inclusion in submissions of any form of threat against a judicial officer if they rule against him is, among other offences, potentially a serious contempt of court and may be dealt with as such.”
