After Howard’s Christchurch sentencing, a woman with whom he had previously been in a long-term relationship also shared her harrowing story of abuse with police.

It resulted in myriad new convictions following a judge-alone trial at the Auckland District Court earlier this year.

The woman said this week that she is grateful she has been allowed time to heal while Howard has been behind bars for the offences against the other woman, but she remained fearful that he might eventually be released.

“I have constantly lived in fear of him returning since he was arrested,” the woman, watching via an audio-video feed, wrote in a victim impact statement that was read aloud by prosecutors. “He always said he would … come after me.”

To this day, the woman said, she struggles driving with male passengers in her car. She copes with “irreparable damage” caused by his crimes, including vision problems and the loss of both fallopian tubes due to infections caused by sexually transmitted diseases he gave her.

After finding Howard guilty of rape, unlawful sexual connection and assault with a blunt instrument, Judge Debra Bell referred the case to the High Court so that preventive detention could be considered.

The rare outcome, at the top of New Zealand’s sentencing hierarchy, is aimed at people who pose a significant and ongoing risk to public safety. Inmates serving such a sentence are released only after the Parole Board determines the risk has been reduced.

Even if they do manage to convince the Parole Board of their reform, they are managed by Corrections for the rest of their life and can be recalled to prison at any time.

Justice Johnstone described Howard’s offending for the current case as “particularly harmful” due in part to how many years it lasted and for the mix of physical and sexual violence. For years, the court noted, Howard would rape the woman about once a week – sometimes punching her in the face when she didn’t submit.

“You appear to have a fascination with knives,” the judge said, noting that knife handles and other objects were used in the sexual assaults of both women.

Had Howard been sentenced for the offences against both women in 2016, Justice Johnstone reckoned he would have received a 20-year prison sentence instead of 16 years. So the judge said he would have added a four-year consecutive sentence to the existing term had preventive detention not been an option.

But the two cases showed “a pattern of increasing seriousness”, the judge noted, explaining that he had reviewed three psychological reports before making his decision.

One report, based on several interviews between July and September this year, determined that Howard would be a high risk of both violent and sexual offending if he were to be set free in 2031 – his original release date.

Another report mentioned Howard’s belief that the world will end in the next decade and his continued denial of the charges. The report writer found Howard’s risk to be just as troubling as it was eight years ago when his last sentence was imposed.

Howard seems to cling to his irrational beliefs because it is easier than confronting “your own disgraceful behaviour”, Justice Johnstone told him.

The judge said he also considered an extended supervision order, a less restrictive alternative often cited by judges when declining a preventive detention application.

Under that scenario, Howard could have been monitored for an additional 10 years after serving the 20-year sentence, which means Corrections would have oversight of him into his 70s.

But the risk to the community would be too high, Justice Johnstone determined.

“It is likely your entrenched attitudes towards sexual behaviour … will continue,” he said, explaining that an ESO would be unlikely to prevent him from getting into another abusive relationship.

“And without a sea change in your attitude, it is likely you will sexually violate that partner.”

Howard will have to serve at least 10 years before he can begin asking the Parole Board to consider his release.

The defendant smiled, nodded to the judge and mumbled to himself as Justice Johnstone announced the preventive detention decision.

He had spent the first 30 minutes of the hearing covering his face with his hand and with his head turned in the opposite direction of the judge, looking towards the back door of the courtoom gallery.

He eventually turned around after the judge paused the hearing to explain to him that the Herald had only been permitted to take photos during the first minute of the hearing.

Due to a recent change in the law, his victim was able to determine whether Howard’s name should be published.

Justice Johnstone initially expressed concern that the facts of the case could lead to her identification if Howard was named, so he asked prosecutors to confirm with her that she was comfortable with her decision against suppression.

The victim, referred to as Ms A throughout the hearing, was confident she was unlikely to be identified by the wider public.

Regardless, the Herald has voluntarily withheld some facts of the case that might make it easier to do so.

The woman added that she is unconcerned that acquaintances who knew of her former relationship with Howard might speculate or figure out that she is Ms A. Most know already, she explained.

It’s more important, she said, that Howard’s name be made public in case other victims are yet to come forward.

“People need to see what a monster he is,” she said.

Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.

Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.