For a former Bay of Plenty woman, the discovery a friend had sexually violated and raped her in tandem with her husband while she was stupefied was the ultimate betrayal.
But to learn their actions had been photographed close up with the images stored on a computer was further degradation and humiliation.
Reading a victim impact statement in the High Court at Hamilton, the woman told Anthony Paylor Goodrick he had wrecked her mental and physical health.
She had been hospitalised five times and subsequent heart problems had reduced her life expectancy by 25 per cent.
She now functioned with the aid of a pacemaker and had suffered deep suicidal thoughts.
Regardless, she would not allow Goodrick to destroy the remainder of her life.
“Tony, you were meant to be my friend,” she said.
Justice Douglas White sentenced Goodrick, 62, to nine years seven months in prison with a minimum non-parole period of four years two months on seven counts of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and two of rape.
Last year, the woman’s former husband Neil Graham Pitceathly was jailed for 20 years on multiple charges, reduced to 18 years on appeal.
Pitceathly’s trial was regarded as a landmark case.
At today’s sentencing of Goodrick, Justice White said there was no other precedent to seek guidance from.
The charges relating to both men spread from January 1 1999 to March 2007, although Goodrick was regarded as a lesser offender.
A jury at his trial in May had rejected his claim he did not know the woman had been drugged, rather that he thought she was asleep or pretending to be asleep.
It also rejected his evidence that he had joined in a threesome to help his co-offender and the victim’s sex life.
Crown prosecutor Rob Ronayne submitted Goodrick’s conduct had had a harrowing impact on the woman and had been a gross breach of trust against a friend in the sanctity of her own home.
He had also assisted in breaking the trust between a husband and wife.
The victim had been violated in a multitude of ways in a crude and callous manner.
In his submissions, defence counsel Paul Mabey QC rejected as “untenable” pre-sentence report claims that Goodrick was at risk of reoffending and should be referred to a programme for sex offenders.
Now he knew the long-term effects of his actions on the victim he deeply regretted his involvement.
Justice White said the victim’s husband had stupefied her, rendering her unconscious by plying her with a combination of sleeping pills and alcohol.
Goodrick must have known she was not feigning unconsciousness.
“You offended against a vulnerable victim who could not defend herself, do or say anything.”
While he did not find Goodrick cruel, that was not a factor in his favour.
The sexual acts had been humiliating and degrading.
Goodrick’s behaviour was abhorrent and in addition he had repositioned the victim for photographs to be taken.
While he noted Goodrick’s age, that he was on medication for angina, was remorseful and had not previously offended, Justice White said he did not consider these to be mitigating factors.
The jury had heard the photographs came to light when the victim asked a technician to check a computer
Be the first to comment