Man and Goat

Man and Goat


oh the questions that remain . . . how did he get caught???

Was it a boy or a girl goat? was the goat underage? Pretty shabby journalism really.

I mean seriously. HOW did he get caught?

Did someone say to the goat . . . "show me on this doll where the man touched you?"





Final name suppression was granted today to a North Canterbury man who admitted trying to have sex with a goat.

In Rangiora District Court, Judge Brian Callaghan ordered the man, who turns 69 tomorrow, to undergo two years of intense supervision.

Judge Callaghan said the behaviour was "unusual, perverse and depraved" but his family, including the man’s wife, continued to support him and publication of his name would negatively affect any chances of his rehabilitation.

"It is unfortunate that cases of this nature, the way things are, attract overwhelming media publicity," the judge said.

"There is no doubt a prurient interest (in the case) that people will want to read about. Unfortunately that is human nature."

He said he believed the man’s wife was "bearing the greatest burden here".

The judge noted the man’s previous sexual offending against pre-pubescent girls more than 20 years ago, which, he said, might explain why he chose an animal to satisfy his sexual urges.

"You are a sad case, really," Judge Callaghan said. "This is such perverse and depraved behaviour it reflects a person of enormous deficiency in personality."

At his earlier appearance the court was told the man believed he would not get caught because "animals couldn’t talk" and he would not be "told on".

He had pleaded guilty then to the charge of attempting to commit bestiality with a goat.

Police said the man admitted taking the goat to the rear of his small lifestyle property in a rural township and trying to have sex with it.

After the unsuccessful attempt, the man did up his trousers, patted the goat and walked off.

"He was contrite but said he was unable to stop the behaviour," the police prosecutor said.

Urging Judge Callaghan to grant final name suppression, lawyer Andrew McCormick said the man had "significant personal problems", was unsophisticated, and as an "untreated sex offender" was at a high risk of reoffending.

When the public became aware of earlier offending against children he’d been "run out of town" and suffered regular beatings.

He’d suffered the "full spotlight of the public" and believed he was a prisoner in his own home, fearful of going out because of public hostility.

The man also suffered from a number of medical conditions, including sexual dysfunction.

"If this man’s identity is before the public, he and his family would become pariahs in the community," Mr McCormick said.

Judge Callaghan noted the maximum penalty for similar offending had been reduced from life imprisonment at the turn of the 20th century to one of 3-1/2 years.

But he said he believed a jail sentence was not warranted despite the "niggling issue of sexual offending against young females over 20 years ago".