A man who sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend twice and then tried to intimidate her into dropping the charges is today facing jail.

His victim was comforted by friends as a jury found him guilty yesterday, after it heard her tearful evidence about how she was attacked in her own home.

She had also told how she was "paralysed with fear" when the man wrote to her twice from custody, where he was remanded after breaching a court order not to contact her after the attacks.

The Women's Resource Centre expressed concern after the case that the man was able to do so despite restrictions on prisoners sending letters and the Department of Corrections has launched an investigation.

The 36-year-old defendant cannot be identified by this newspaper despite his conviction in order to protect the right of the woman to anonymity.

During the Supreme Court trial, the jury heard her tell how her ex sexually assaulted her during the first incident last year, after entering her home as a trespasser in breach of a restraining order against him.

She also testified that he stole $40 and injured her in a number of ways including slapping her face, kicking her leg and biting her hand and breast.

"He asked me why I wanted to stop seeing him...he started to hit me. He said that he was going to f**k me up," said the woman, describing herself as "terrified" during the attack.

The jury of eight women and four men convicted the man of sexual assault and causing his victim bodily harm, but cleared him of the theft charge. They also found him guilty of forcing his way back into her home three weeks later, despite bail conditions for the first charges banning him from contacting her. On this date, he was alleged to have committed a serious sexual assault after threatening to slit his victim's throat with a knife if she made any noise. However, the jury convicted him of a lesser charge of sexual assault instead, which does not encompass the use of a weapon. The man was further convicted of intimidating the woman into dropping the charges against him on a number of occasions, including three phone calls from Hamilton Police station after his arrest over the first attack, as well as two letters from Westgate after he was remanded into custody for breaching bail conditions by contacting her.

The jury cleared the defendant over allegations that he robbed his victim of $500 before running his car into her legs in an incident alleged to have followed the second sex attack.

Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons remanded the man into custody until this morning when a date for his sentence will be fixed.

Although the victim declined to comment after the verdict, Kathy Harriott of the Women's Resource Centre said clients have in the past complained of receiving mail from prison inmates that appeared not to be stamped as vetted by the authorities.

"A client would generally feel threatened (by this) if an inmate was in Westgate because of violence perpetrated against her," said Ms Harriott, adding that the complainants were encouraged to report this.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections said: "All letters, except those to inmates' lawyers, are vetted and read by prison staff before being sent out. If a letter is found to contain anything untoward it is immediately confiscated. If the letter contains something of a criminal nature, like the threats referred to during this trial, the Police are notified. It is possible that the letters were smuggled out of prison with the aid of an accomplice, who was either an inmate or a visitor of the accused. The Department of Corrections is looking further into the matter."

Meanwhile, the defendant's lawyer Llewellyn Peniston found himself in hot water with Mrs. Justice Simmons, having been reprimanded by her on numerous occasions during the case for the nature of his questioning. He, in turn, frequently complained of feeling "shackled" by the judge. She told him after the verdict: "I have found your conduct wanting throughout this trial and I wonder if you will apologise to the face of the court?"

Mr. Peniston replied: "I apologise to Your Ladyship...but when it appears that the bench (ie the judge) is talking down to me, I will respond in a like manner. I had the impression shackles were put on me. It was in response to the perception of that I behaved in that way. I think to avoid repetition, My Lady should be aware of my sensitivity."

Indicating that she is considering reporting the lawyer to his professional body, the Bar Association, Mrs. Justice Simmons inquired whether its code of conduct embraced this "sensitivity" or expected him to behave in a proper manner in court. Mr. Peniston replied: "I accept that my behaviour was aggressive on occasions, and to that extent I apologise to My Lady."

The judge said she considered this to be "a qualified apology" and would give the matter further thought.