2019-11-03 by W.M.
‘Serial sex monster’ Garry Narkle is a gentlemanly and pampering husband, wife tells court
The wife of a man once described in the WA Parliament as “a serial sex monster” has described her husband as gentlemanly and pampering as she advocated for his release from prison.
- Prosecutors are seeking for Garry Narkle to be declared a “dangerous sex offender”
- They argue Narkle’s wife could be added to his long list of victims if he is released
- But the women insisted Narkle was a loving husband who posed no risk
The woman, who cannot be identified, is married to 64-year-old Garry Narkle, who has a criminal record that stretches over 40 years and includes violent sex crimes against a man, several women and children.
She gave evidence at a Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Narkle should be officially declared a “dangerous sex offender”.
If that declaration was made he could either be kept in custody or released into the community on a strict supervision order with more than 50 conditions.
Prosecutors have argued against his release mainly because he would be living with the woman at her home and there were concerns she might become one of his long list of victims.
Relationship began before homeless man rape
The 45-year-old woman testified she met Narkle through an acquaintance in 2009, three weeks before he was arrested and taken into custody for the rape of a homeless man.
The woman said she and Narkle formed a relationship “within a matter of hours” and she started living with him that night.
“We had an affinity at the time and it was appropriate under the circumstances it proceeded as it did,” she said.
“I felt he was caring towards me.”
She said while their relationship later became strained, she believed they could work through their misunderstandings because she loved him and had “never considered herself to be out of love with him”.
“I see positive characteristics in my husband. We have an affinity and we get along very well,” she said.
“We have similar interests in music, art and general attitudes towards various topics.”
The couple married in jail in September 2011, but prosecutors maintained their relationship was abusive and unstable and the woman was at risk of being attacked by Narkle.
The court heard recorded prison phone calls in which the couple argued and abused and swore at each other.
Narkle also accused the woman of being unfaithful to him.
In her evidence the woman agreed the calls were abusive, but she said she remained hopeful they could move beyond their misunderstandings “to a healthier relationship”.
She said she planned for them to undergo counselling if Narkle was released and hoped they could have “companionship and friendship”.
“To have freedom, to go where we like and spend time together,” she said.
The woman said during the three weeks she was living with Narkle he was very pleasant.
“He’s tidy, he’s very gentlemanly, will cook and clean and be very pampering … that’s the way he is and that’s a positive attribute for a relationship and I find that very endearing,” she said.
Wife unaware of criminal record
The woman was questioned about her knowledge of Narkle’s criminal record, admitting she was only made aware of his full history of offences when she had a meeting with his lawyer a couple of months ago.
But she said she did not think she was at risk from her husband.
“I don’t have any fear of him and I haven’t seen any physical violence towards me,” she said.
“The effort Garry’s put in is a 100 per cent effort to progress, so the risk of that behaviour is not as high as it was in the past …”
Chief Justice Peter Quinlan is likely to reserve his decision on the case. (ABC News: Briana Shepherd)
When asked what she would do if Narkle was ever violent towards her, she replied she would call the police and end the relationship.
The woman has two children — a man in his 20s and a teenage girl.
She testified neither would be living with her and Narkle, and while her children had supported her relationship at first, they had been less supportive as they got older.
Chief Justice Peter Quinlan, who is presiding over the hearing, is likely to reserve his decision until a later date.