Former St Peter's School staff member Geoffrey Coker. Photo / Belinda Feek
Former St Peter's School staff member Geoffrey Coker. Photo / Belinda Feek
WARNING: This content discusses sexual harm
Former St Peter’s School teacher Geoffrey Coker maintains he’s been a scapegoat for sexual indecency offending against seven young pupils and still refuses to show any remorse.
But that staunch stance saw Judge Tini Clark send the 75-year-old to jail for twoyears and eight months in a marathon sentencing in the Hamilton District Court today after he was found guilty of nine charges in a jury trial last year.
The charges — four of doing an indecent act on a boy under 12 and five of inducing a boy to do an indecent act — resulted from offending between 1975 and 1976 around Waikato, including in Hamilton, Matamata, and at his staff apartment at the school near Cambridge.
Coker rubbed his naked body against the naked body of a complainant, asked two boys to bathe together naked and show each other their genitals while he watched them, and indecently touched another boy over his clothes.
The charges came out after St Peter’s issued an apology in September 2021 after an investigation revealed historic cases of abuse against former pupils at the school by a former staff member.
Police then investigated the allegations and Coker, who taught at the school between 1974 and 1976, was identified and charged.
At the time, it was an exclusive boys school and Coker lived on-site alongside other teachers, in private living quarters.
“St Peter’s gave us a great education,” one said, “But where they failed us was not keeping us safe from predators like you.
“This went unresolved for almost half a century and finally, today, we get justice.”
Last year, after the verdicts, he received a letter of apology from the school board of trustees for what happened to him.
“An apology for things that you did, before most of them had even been born.”
The victim said he’d grown up “a cynical man”.
“Forty-eight years ago, I called you a creep and today I see that nothing has changed. You are still a conceited, pompous, narcissist.”
Another victim said Coker’s refusal to accept responsibility was “disrespectful”.
‘He was meant to mentor them, not abuse them’
Crown solicitor Kasey Dillon pushed the judge to take a four-year start but not offer any discounts for previous good character or services to the community.
“The defendant was in a position of loco parentis, where parents trusted him with their children.
“He was there to mentor them, to teach them. He was not there to invite them into his home and certainly not there to sexually offend against them,” Dillon said.
‘He’s a scapegoat’
Coker’s counsel, JD Dallas, pointed to the hot pools offending, and said other people in the pools never mentioned anything untoward occurring.
He also added that just because there were seven victims, it didn’t mean she should take a higher starting point.
“Each of these offences is not of itself enough to take the matter much beyond two years.
“The fact there’s more than one ... is not sufficient to raise the total.”
He said he was only at the school for 18 months and did not offend in his first year.
The judge said she didn’t agree with his stance on the number of victims.
“I think it does make a difference,” she said.
As Coker still denied the offending, the judge asked Dallas what other discounts she could take into account, given he had also not shown any remorse.
“He still feels that he is the scapegoat because of what other teachers have done at St Peter’s.
“He’s the only one left standing and left getting the consequences.”
However, the judge warned him he was on “very delicate territory” by pushing that argument as the court would be acknowledging the harm caused to the victims by his actions.
“The court applauds the courage of those men who came forward, gave evidence at trial and it’s only hoped that sentencing today will give some closure.”
She took a starting point of three years and two months and agreed to give a 15% discount for previous good character.
That saw her get down to two years and eight months' jail.
“One of the matters which would have been compelling to me ... would have been an acceptance of responsibility.
“That is not a factor here.
“If there had been a different approach taken ... I may well have been persuaded to allow for home detention.
“Imposing home detention ... where he has taken no responsibility for his sexual offending against young boys ... as it stands, I do not consider that there are adequate reasons for the court to impose anything other than imprisonment.”
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.
