A young woman accused of murdering her stepfather did it to free herself from a life of horrendous sexual slavery, a court heard yesterday.

The woman, from Mooroopna, near Shepparton, has been ordered to stand trial for murder after two days of sometimes harrowing evidence about the years of sexual abuse that preceded the gruesome killing of her stepfather.

The woman, who is out on bail, has entered a plea of not guilty.

The pre-trial committal hearing in Shepparton Magistrates Court heard that her stepfather sexually abused her — sometimes daily — from when she was 14 for four years. Almost 10,000 images of sexual intercourse and sex acts, taken by the man on a digital camera, were found by police on discs and memory sticks after her arrest.

The court heard the woman shot her stepfather, 34, in the back of the head with his shotgun after he forced her at gunpoint to perform oral sex in his Mooroopna shed in March last year. The court heard the two had sexual intercourse inside the house an hour earlier.

Detective Senior Constable Barry Gray, of the homicide squad, said the woman had told police "she would not have to do it again if he was not there".

The next morning, according to a police interview, she cut off his arms, legs and head with a hand-saw. She then buried the torso in the garden, put the limbs and head in white plastic rubbish bags and took them to a camping ground 16 kilometres away. She threw the limbs down two long-drop toilets and hid the head in the bush.

She told police she had to do what her stepfather had ordered when he was alive because "I was his". Asked what would have happened if she had not shot him, she said: "I probably would have killed myself … 'cos I couldn't live the way I was."

The Age understands that prominent barrister Robert Richter, QC, will defend the woman free of charge at her trial, partly because of the case's possible relevance to Victoria's new defensive homicide laws. The laws, legal experts said, could increase her chances of being acquitted on the grounds that she was defending herself.

Her lawyer, Peter Chadwick, said in court yesterday she suffered "continual, entrenched and ongoing" sexual abuse and "consistent" threats to her life over the four years. There was "no doubt" about the seriousness of the abuse because it was "videoed and photographed and was clear for all to see".

The photographs depicted oral and vaginal sex, the court heard. One showed the girl bound to a chair with cable ties.

During the committal hearing, the court heard that several people strongly suspected the teenager's relationship with her stepfather was sexual. Her mother — who was living in the Mooroopna house with the pair but working night shifts at the SPC Ardmona cannery — accused him of "f---ing" her daughter but he dismissed it.

Two former schoolfriends of the woman from Mooroopna Secondary College said they had spoken with a teacher and a school counsellor about their suspicions, but to their knowledge no action was taken.

With the committal of the woman yesterday to stand trial, it may be more than a year before her case comes before the Supreme Court.

A number of legal defences are available to her, despite the former defence of provocation no longer existing in Victoria.

The provocation defence was often used by men to explain violent conduct after their partners taunted them, or were said to have been unfaithful.

The defence was banned in Victoria in 2005, but remains a factor for a judge to take into account when sentencing.

Queen's counsel David Grace said yesterday self-defence had been run successfully in murder trials on behalf of people who killed after suffering long-term abuse. In those cases, juries apparently accepted the behaviour was self-defence because it was the only way the abusive conduct could be stopped.

The law also allows jurors to hear evidence about family violence perpetrated on an accused person to show the context in which a homicide occurred.

Under the 2005 Victorian reforms, a new offence of defensive homicide — carrying the same maximum penalty of 20 years' jail as manslaughter — was created. The crime would apply to offenders who believed unreasonably they needed to kill to defend themselves or another person.

An accused person could be charged with defensive homicide, and it could also be an alternative verdict to murder.

article here

four years, several people suspected, and yet no action was ever taken. poor girl.

ok i am REALLY tired today - so dumb question... where is this? Mooroopna is not familiar and I cant deal with google today *cries*

Mooroopna, Victoria is in Austraila.

yeah, it's a place in victoria, australia. not really a dumb question if you don't live here ;D

I'd have shot the fucking prick too.
I hope she gets off.

I agree with Blue Bella. He deserved it.

I agree that he needed to die as well.

I think what's going to be taken into account though is that after she shot and killed him, she didn't just call police and explain it.

She dismembered the body and then tried to hide it. That's looks like she's trying to hide something.

But overall, I hope she walks scot free. they should give her an award for doing a public service.

it's a shame she did cut him up and hide it, because i think the cops would've been more than understanding about killing him. but i don't think anyone in that situation would be thinking clearly.

Thats what I was thinking. Shooting someone for harming you is one thing.

But then taking the body, dismembering it and trying to hide it all is quite another ordeal.

Not that I don't think this dickhead deserved it, because he definitely deserved a shot in the face (one to the balls while he was still alive would have been a good reminder too).

I'm not sure how it is in Australia, but in America walking away on the defense thing would be hard considering she did all that extra stuff with his body. I hope she walks away free though.

OK, the step-father was a bastard!! But how the hell could she cut his body up in peices and try to hide the evidence, that right there tells you she was thinking with a clear mind, and she felt guilt over it. If she would have shot him and then immediately told police or somebody else then I think she could get out of it, but how the hell can you cut up a human body with a saw and be seen as a poor pitiful victim?????? It is tragic and she is indeed the victim (im not saying she isn't) but clearly she had other alternatives than shooting him. She just ruined her life over this perverted bastard.

she'd probably tell you she's made her life better. i'd probably pick prison over my dad molesting and raping me for four years. i don't think cutting up a body shows a clear mind, or guilt.

There is no real proof that she WAS thinking in a clear mind. She was probably rather delusional about the whole thing and in her rage probably hacked him up.

Yeah I think the fact that she chopped him up shows just how unstable her state of mind was...she probably snapped, killed the bastard, panicked about getting in trouble, and tried to hide the body. Although I can't imagine walking around with anybody's severed head....but I doubt she was a very stable individual to begin with after being sexually abused for four years by a father figure. I'm sure a decent lawyer could defend her actions.

I was thinking the same thing. The poor girl probably had no conscious idea of what she was doing. She should be given nothing more than intense counseling.

FUNNY THEY CALL HER A TEENAGER WHEN SHE'S 18 - LIKE STRICTLY SPEAKING, THAT IS A TEENAGER, BUT IT IS ALSO AN ADULT, AND NOT NORMALLY REFERRED TO AS A TEENAGER. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE REFERRED TO HER AS A TEENAGER IF SHE'D NOT BEEN A VICTIM - IF SHE'D KILLED SOME CHILD OR SOMETHING.

NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE SOME SYMPATHY FOR HER PLIGHT, BUT IT ANNOYS ME THAT JOURNALISTS ALTER THEIR LANGUAGE TO TRY TO MANIPULATE THE SYMPATHIES OF THE READERS.

AND THE THING IS, YES, HER MIND WAS PROBABLY TOTALLY ADDLED AND UNSTABLE - BUT THEN SO ARE THE MINDS OF MOST MURDERERS AND ABUSERS, WHO OFTEN HAVE HORRIFIC EXPERIENCES THEMSELVES. OF COURSE, THIS IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE PERSON SHE MURDERED WAS HER ABUSER, SO ONE CAN SAY HE DESERVED IT, BUT IF YOU ARE USING AS DEFENCE THAT SHE WAS TOTALLY MESSED UP AND IN NEED OF COUNSELLING - WELL, THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF MANY MURDERERS. POSSIBLY OF HER ABUSER HIMSELF. IT IS A COMPLEX SITUATION - MADE MORE COMPLEX BY THE FACT THAT, WELL, MOST ABUSE VICTIMS DON'T MURDER AND CHOP UP THEIR ABUSER.

they call her a woman in most of the articles i've read about it, then i read she's 18. so i get that she's seen as an adult so they have to call her a woman, but i find it hard seeing teens as adults lol. it is annoying the way they twist words to gain sympathy.

if i was going to chop up my abuser i'd probably want to do it while the son of a bitch was still alive.