Goose v Police - [2017] NZHC 2453

THE APPELLANT’S NAME IS SUPPRESSED UNTIL NOON FRIDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI 2017-485-44

[2017] NZHC 2453

BETWEEN
ANDREW GOOSE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2017

Counsel:

J Griffiths for Appellant

C M Gisler for Respondent

Judgment:

6 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Goose, now aged 20, was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment for six charges of sexual offending in relation to young children.1 He appeals two aspects of his sentence:

(a)the length; and

(b)the refusal to grant permanent name suppression.

[2] If successful as regards length, two consequent issues will arise – home detention and placement on the child sex offenders register.

1 R v Goose [2017] NZDC 20053.

GOOSE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2453 [6 October 2017]

Offending2

[3]There are two victims.

[4] Mr Goose met the first victim, V1, at a holiday programme. They became friends with Mr Goose assuming the role of a big brother.

[5] The first offending occurred when V1 was 10, and the appellant 17. V1 expressed curiosity about sexuality. This led to both boys removing their trousers and the appellant lying behind V1. He put his penis against V1’s buttocks and simulated sex. This conduct was repeated on numerous occasions although after the first time the boys remained clothed. Mr Goose would on occasions unsuccessfully seek to remove or have V1 remove his pants. On some of these occasions Mr Goose masturbated while behind V1 and also placed V1’s hand on his penis while doing so.

[6] On other occasions Mr Goose unsuccessfully asked V1 to perform oral sex on him. The appellant regularly masturbated in front of V1. On one occasion when their respective ages were 12 and 19, the appellant more forcefully held V1 down, removed his pants, and masturbated above him. Overall the offending spanned about a year.

[7] The offending against V2 overlapped with the end period of the offending against V1. It consisted of masturbating in V2’s presence. The conduct was obvious to V1 but he did not see the appellant’s genitalia.

[8]Mr Goose admitted the conduct, some of which he disclosed.

Sentencing

[9] The District Court took a starting point of three years’ imprisonment which is not challenged on appeal. In its submissions seeking to uphold the sentence as not manifestly excessive, the Crown submits a higher starting point was possible. I do not agree in the sense that the starting point seems to me to be about right, but if anything shaded towards the higher end of the spectrum. Without ever minimising sexual

2 Mr Goose’s name is not to be suppressed. Accordingly, the offending will be described with limited detail to minimise risks of identifying the victims.

offending involving children, the conduct concerning V2 is at the lower end of the scale. V1 is more serious but involves minimal skin on skin conduct, and no penetration of any kind.

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 Goose v Police

Details

AGLC: Goose v Police [2017] NZHC 2453
Case: [2017] NZHC 2453
Decision Date: 6 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Andrew Goose, appeals his sentence for six charges of sexual offending involving young children, as well as the refusal to grant permanent name suppression. The court had to decide on the length of the sentence and whether it was manifestly excessive, as well as whether the appellant should be placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register and whether name suppression should be granted. The High Court found that the District Court’s 30 per cent discount for mitigation was insufficient, and that a 10 per cent discount was more appropriate. The Court substituted the 25-month imprisonment sentence with a 10-month home detention sentence and ordered the appellant be placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register. The appeal against the refusal to grant name suppression was dismissed.

The High Court of New Zealand addressed the appeal brought forth by Andrew Goose, who was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment for six charges of sexual offending against young children. The appellant contested two aspects of his sentence: the length and the refusal to grant permanent name suppression. The court examined the seriousness of the offending, the age of the victims, and the appellant's remorse and rehabilitation prospects. The court found that a 10 per cent discount for mitigation was more appropriate than the 30 per cent discount given by the District Court. As a result, the court substituted the 25-month imprisonment sentence with a 10-month home detention sentence, and ordered the appellant to be placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register. The appeal against the refusal to grant name suppression was dismissed, with the existing name suppression expiring at noon on Friday, 13 October 2017.

Orders