That was the finding of Justice Peter Garling when Harding was sentenced to 27 years jail in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The court found wheelchair-bound Ms Anthony, known to her friends as Christine Darcy, was “an innocent, unknowing and defenceless woman”.

The 50-year-old had started her day as usual at her home in Fifth Avenue, Narromine on February 14, 2011.

Suffering from the hereditary condition spastic paraplegia, she had been confined to a wheelchair for about 20 years.

Ms Anthony lived on her own and was visited once a day by a community nurse who assisted with showering and other personal tasks. Ms Anthony had a number of close friends and family members who visited regularly.

She had previously been married. The court found she was not in any permanent relationship at the time of her death.

David Harding lived a short distance away. Ms Anthony had known him since childhood and they had been in a sexual relationship for about 14 months prior to her murder.

Mr Harding was aged 57 and in a de facto relationship with another woman when he killed Ms Anthony.

On the morning of February 14, 2011 Mr Harding left his home about 9.30am. He purchased a number of items, including a cask of Moselle wine, at a local shopping centre before visiting Ms Anthony shortly after 10am.

Mr Harding assisted with a few chores and between midday and 2pm the friends drank a number of glasses of Moselle together. At about 2pm, the community nurse called to see Ms Anthony. At that time, Mr Harding and Ms Anthony were sitting in the living area talking apparently amicably. 

The court found Mr Harding and Ms Anthony stayed in each other’s company for the rest of the afternoon and into the evening.

“It is quite unclear precisely what happened throughout that time,’’ Justice Garling said in his sentencing judgement.

“It appears that there was an argument between Ms Anthony and Mr Harding about another male from Nevertire coming to live with her. When this argument occurred, how long it continued for, and how it ended, are not matters which are contained within the agreed facts.

“I am satisfied that both Mr Harding and Ms Anthony continued to drink some of the Moselle wine. At about 9.30pm, by which time the deceased was wearing a nylon nightgown, it appears that Mr Harding rose from his chair and picked up a bottle of methylated spirits which had been sitting on a bench in the kitchen area of Ms Anthony’s apartment.

“Mr Harding opened the childproof cap on the bottle, stood over Ms Anthony who was in her wheelchair, and then poured the contents of the bottle, which I am satisfied was about 250ml, over the head and torso of Ms Anthony. 

“He then took his cigarette lighter and set fire to Ms Anthony. Mr Harding then left Ms Anthony’s home carrying the plastic bottle. It seems he shut the door behind him. It is unclear how long it was between the time he set Ms Anthony alight and his leaving her home.’’

The court found Mr Harding walked down the back laneway and threw the plastic bottle into the backyard of one of the houses adjacent to that laneway.

Mr Harding walked home and spoke with his de facto. He told her that Ms Anthony had “dared him to set her alight” and that the police would be around to see him soon.

“I am not satisfied that Ms Anthony in fact dared Mr Harding to set her alight,’’ Justice Garling said.

“Although Ms Anthony was alight and confined to her wheelchair when Mr Harding left her home, she was able to move her wheelchair around the house, seemingly in an attempt to call for help, or in a vain attempt to extinguish the flames.

“She telephoned for help and two men arrived quickly. They tipped water on Ms Anthony and called triple-0. Ms Anthony told these two gentlemen ‘David poured metho on me and lit it’. She said something similar to the police and ambulance officers when they arrived.’’

Ms Anthony was transported to Dubbo Base Hospital for emergency medical treatment and was then flown to Sydney. It was intended that she be taken to the burns unit at Concord Hospital, but as she arrived at Sydney airport, she suffered a cardiac arrest. Ms Anthony was pronounced dead at the nearby St George Hospital at 9.20am on February 15.

Mr Harding was arrested and taken to the Narromine police station. He participated in an electronically recorded interview, commencing at 3.35am. On February 18 he participated in a video recorded walk through of the crime scene. 

In the course of his recorded interview, Mr Harding gave broadly, two versions of the facts to the police officers.

The first was that Ms Anthony had dared him to set her alight, and that he did so. The second version was that Mr Harding did not know the bottle contained methylated spirits, and threw it onto Ms Anthony from about three feet away, thinking that it was water and that the fire was lit accidentally when he passed a lit cigarette to her.

“I am well satisfied that neither of these accounts are correct,’’ Justice Garling said.

“Ms Anthony apparently trusted Mr Harding and regarded him as a friend. She was a woman who had not done anything which warranted the brutal attack to which she was subjected.

“It is hard to imagine a more excruciatingly painful death than that to which Ms Anthony was subjected. She was conscious when she was set alight, and when help arrived, but severely burnt.

“As the burns engulfed her body, she could feel the physical pain involved, but could do nothing to ameliorate it. Her mental suffering, including her fear of what was to happen, must have been truly awful.’’

Justice Garling said the offence had a serious level of criminality but he was not persuaded that it should be categorised as falling into the worst case category.

“I am not satisfied that the offence was accompanied by an intention on Mr Harding’s part to kill Ms Anthony,’’ he said.

“I am well satisfied that Mr Harding intended to cause grievous bodily harm. As best as can be determined, in assessing the objective criminality of Mr Harding’s conduct, I am persuaded that on the probabilities, he set fire to Ms Anthony because he was in a state of jealous anger which derived from their argument about another man, and whilst in that state, or consequent upon it, he set alight to her intending to cause grievous bodily harm.’’

Justice Garling described Mr Harding’s past criminal record as very poor.

“Since he was first convicted of an offence of violence for assaulting a female in 1982, Mr Harding has been convicted of about 15 separate offences of assault, of one form or another including, on one occasion, the assault being one which has occasioned actual bodily harm,’’ Justice Garling said.

“As well, he has five convictions for being in breach of, or else contravening, provisions of, apprehended domestic violence orders, or apprehended violence orders, and he has four convictions for stalking or intimidating either police officers or others. 

“Since his first conviction in 1982, the balance of his convictions have continued up until the time of this offence. He has spent time in prison for some of these offences. This record is relevant to consider because it means that Mr Harding is not entitled to the benefit of any leniency which may impact upon the sentence to be imposed.’’

At the time of the murder Mr Harding was on bail for charges of common assault and contravening an apprehended domestic violence order. The terms of his bail required him to be of good behaviour.

The court heard a victim statement read by Dee Dickinson, the sister of Ms Anthony.

Justice Garling said this clearly touched the members of Ms Anthony’s family.

“I recognise that it has affected them all deeply,’’ he said.

The court was told Mr Harding was born and raised in Mudgee in a stable family. He was the third of 15 children. He left school at about 14 years of age, working as a farm hand, in an abattoir, as a transport driver and an off-sider delivering hay.

Mr Harding married in about 1970. The marriage lasted about 20 years before he separated from his wife in 1990.

“From that marriage he had two children,’’ Justice Garling said.

“He adopted his wife’s daughter born to her during a previous marriage. He has no contact with his children or with his former wife. Since this incident occurred, he has not had any contact with his siblings or other members of his family.’’

Justice Garling said Mr Harding had a lengthy history of alcohol abuse and first started drinking at age 13.

The court was told at times he was drinking as many as 30 standard alcohol drinks in the course of a day or evening.

“The drinking of alcohol has been associated with many of his past criminal offences, and with his exhibiting violence,’’ Justice Garling said.

“He does not seem to have done very much to remediate his alcohol abuse. It is one factor which has contributed to his acquired brain injury.’’

In 1985, Mr Harding suffered a traumatic head and brain injury in a motorcycle accident. Recently, an MRI brain scan was completed and reported on as being suggestive of previous trauma. 

Justice Garling accepted medical opinion that Mr Harding’s brain scan confirmed that he had an acquired brain injury, and that such injury was permanent.

He also accepted medical opinion that the causes of that acquired brain injury were likely to be multiple, including damage caused by chronic alcohol abuse.

“Neurological testing demonstrates that Mr Harding operates at a low level of intellectual function, being in either the low average range or the extremely low range,’’ Justice Garling said.

“Some of his intellectual function was rated as being in the borderline range. (Medical) opinion, which I accept, is that Mr Harding has impairment evident in his current level of intellectual function attention, memory for spoken lengthy information, processing speed and in the areas of frontal executive function including speed and flexibility of thinking, verbal fluency and planning and organisation. 

“However, neuropsychological testing did not reveal any evidence of impulsivity, disinhibition or perseveration.

“As history shows, notwithstanding the effects of his acquired brain injury, Mr Harding has been able to live and function in the community. He has been able to be employed from time to time. In particular, his acquired brain injury and low intellect do not explain his lack of self-control, nor do they provide any basis for excusing impulsive actions as being beyond his control.’’

The court heard Mr Harding had a long history of being quick to anger.

“This existed before his acquired brain injury,’’ Justice Garling said.

“His tendency to anger has been often seen in conjunction with his tendency for violence. In this case, except for setting Ms Anthony alight, there are no signs of violence.

“She did not appear to have been physically assaulted. There did not seem to have been any signs of violence in her house. Furniture and fittings were not damaged.

“When seen in the immediate aftermath of the offence, Mr Harding appeared calm and apparently composed. His tendency to anger does not provide a ready explanation for what occurred, but it does seem that his jealousy provides an explanation for his conduct.’’

Justice Garling determined the appropriate sentence to be 36 years imprisonment.

“However, Mr Harding is entitled to be given an appropriate discount for the fact that he has pleaded guilty to the offence,’’ he said.

“In the circumstances here relevant, that discount ought be 25 per cent. Accordingly, the total appropriate sentence is one of 27 years imprisonment. Of that sentence, I determine that Mr Harding must spend 20 years and three months in jail before being eligible for parole.’’

A parole period of six years and nine months will start on May 14, 2031 and end on February 13, 2038.

Mr Harding will be eligible for release on May 13, 2031.