Legal Research
Cases
Goatley v The the Queen

Goatley v The the Queen

Case [2022] NZHC 414 10 March 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2022-412-5 [2022] NZHC 414

BETWEEN
LUKE MALACHI GOATLEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 4 March 2022 (By way of VMR)

Appearances:

J A Westgate for Appellant

C E R Power for Respondent

Judgment:

10 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 March 2022 at 9.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

GOATLEY v R [2022] NZHC 414 [10 March 2022]

Introduction

[1] Luke Goatley pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault1 and was convicted2 and sentenced3 by Judge D P Robinson in the Dunedin District Court to six months’ community detention, 275 hours’ community work, nine months’ supervision, and ordered to pay $2,000 emotional harm reparation. The Judge declined to grant a discharge without conviction. Mr Goatley now appeals against that decision. In the alternative, Mr Goatley appeals against the sentence on the basis it was manifestly excessive.

Background

[2] In the evening of 8 July 2020, Mr Goatley was socialising in the student quarter of Dunedin. He had been drinking with friends at a restaurant before walking to Howe Street, where several flat parties were occurring. Mr Goatley entered a Howe Street address where 30 to 50 people were socialising, drinking and playing games. He was neither invited to the party nor known to any of the occupants.

[3] At around 11 pm, the victim, who was at the time a 20-year-old student unknown to Mr Goatley, went to bed in her partner’s bedroom. Her partner was a tenant at the address. The gathering disbanded at around 12.30 am and people made their way to other houses or parties nearby. At some time between 12.30 am and 3 am, Mr Goatley removed his shoes and entered the house and bedroom where the victim was asleep. The room was dark and had no lighting. Mr Goatley removed his jeans and climbed into the bed over the top of the victim. He started kissing her. In the mistaken belief it was her partner kissing her, the victim allowed this to occur but asked him why he had shaved his beard. Mr Goatley then rubbed and touched the victim’s body. In response she took off her jeans and started touching her vagina. Mr Goatley then touched the victim’s genitalia, continuing until the victim told him to stop because it was “gross”.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 135 – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      R v Goatley [2022] NZDC 2165.
3      R v Goatley [2022] NZDC 2354.

[4] At around 4 am, the victim’s partner entered the room to go to bed and discovered Mr Goatley in bed with the victim. At this stage the victim realised Mr Goatley was a complete stranger. Mr Goatley hurriedly put his jeans back on and was escorted from the room before attempting to escape. He was detained by Campus Watch until…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Goatley v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Goatley v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 414
Case: [2022] NZHC 414
Decision Date: 10 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Malachi Goatley appeals against the decision of the Dunedin District Court to refuse him a discharge without conviction and against the sentence imposed for his conviction of indecent assault. The appeal was heard by the High Court at Dunedin and the appeal against the refusal of a discharge without conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the sentence of nine months’ supervision was reduced to a sentence of six months’ supervision on the same conditions, the sentence of community detention was quashed, and the sentence of 275 hours’ community work and the order to pay emotional harm reparation of $2,000 both stand.

The Court found that the offending was properly characterised as moderately serious, taking into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court found that the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, and that the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction was justified. The Court found that the sentence of nine months’ supervision was manifestly excessive given the rehabilitative steps the appellant had already taken, and the likelihood of future offending was minimal. The Court found that the sentence of community detention was also manifestly excessive given the likely disruption that it would cause to the appellant’s academic studies at the University in 2022.

Orders