escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Offender Databases Brian Godfrey

Brian Raymond Godfrey

Alias

.

Offences

Rape of a 13-year-old Christchurch girl and sexual assault of another in November/December 1995

Victims

.

Offender Affiliations

.

Gang affiliations

none known

Age

Born 1967

Current Location

unknown

Parole/Release Dates

Sentenced to nine years in April 1997
Unsuccessfully appealed in September 1997

Background
From Christchurch Press story 26th April 1997
A St Johns Ambulance Service volunteer who raped one 13-year-old girl and sexually assaulted another was sentenced on Thursday to nine years in jail by a Christchurch District Court judge. The court was told that Brian Raymond Godfrey, 30, a night-care supervisor, continues to deny the offences despite being found guilty by a jury last week of rape, sexual violation by indecent assault, and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.

Judge David Saunders said Godfrey's continued denial of guilt despite the legacy of fear and distress his abuse had instilled in the two girls made him a continuing risk to the public. "All I say is that on your release you must never let yourself get into the situation again of letting young girls get into your care," he said. "You would do well to reflect in the weeks and months ahead of the need for treatment programmes. When you are at the appropriate stage, I am sure they will be made available to you."

Accused met girls through work Catherine Cull, prosecuting, said Godfrey met the girls separately through his work as a divisional manager of the St Johns ambulance service. Their parents allowed them to stay overnight at the home Godfrey shared with his fiancee. In November or December 1995 the first girl was staying for the weekend with Godfrey when he came to her bed late at night, put his hand over her mouth, pulled down her pyjamas and had sex with her. "After he finished, he got off and said that if she ever told anything to anyone he would do it again and do it worse," Ms Cull said.

The next day, while Godfrey's fiancee was away, he made her sit on his knee, then took her top off and kissed her lips and breasts. She was left frightened and upset by the incident. The second 13-year-old girl and her younger sister went to stay with Godfrey and his fiancee in 1995. While her sister was having a shower, Godfrey came into the second girl's room, knelt beside her bed, told her how beautiful she was, and tried to force his penis into her mouth. After a brief contact, she pushed him away. Girls come forward with allegations Neither girl knew of the other's claim before they each came forward with their allegations against Godfrey, the court heard.

Godfrey's counsel, Tony Garrett, said the defendant had given 10 years of service to voluntary organisations. He had no previous convictions and his fiancee was standing by him. Judge Saunders told Godfrey the victim impact statements confirmed that something "clearly happened while they were in your care which has caused them great distress by way of disturbed sleep patterns. This was a serious breach of trust. Their parents trusted them to stay with you." The judge said that letters found when Godfrey was arrested suggested pedophile tendencies.

---

Corrections and Additional Information
We endeavour to make this database as accurate as possible, but we are at the mercy of whatever information we can find in various online and offline archives. We rely on the public - that is, people like you - to fill in the gaps that we cannot. If you wish to submit additional information or a correction to this file CLICK HERE . Privacy: Trust policy is that all sources are treated as strictly confidential unless we are explicitly told otherwise. If you wish to see a file removed from this database certain conditions must be met by the offender set out HERE Note that this does NOT apply for those that are the primary offender in a murder, rape, or any sexual offending involving minors. We do not enter into correspondence regarding the guilt/innocence of offenders. Such correspondence is not responded to, especially if the offender concerned has a number of prior convictions

Back to Top