Consent No Excuse For Sodomy, Says Judge (Press, 7 November 1985)

On 7 November 1985, a High Court Judge in Auckland, Mr Justice Vautier, expressed concerns regarding the societal implications of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, indicating that it had led people to perceive sodomy as more acceptable. He voiced his apprehension about the potential normalisation of sodomy, stating that it would be a regrettable day for the community if this were to happen. The comments came during the sentencing of Carl Robert Green, a 21-year-old spraypainter, who was given a three-year prison sentence for the rape and sodomy of a woman, as well as an additional sentence for burglary. The judge emphasized that consent is not a valid justification for sodomy, highlighting the seriousness of the crime and the need to reflect community disapproval through appropriate sentencing. During the court proceedings, defence counsel Mr Alexander Witten-Hannah argued for periodic detention for Green due to the extraordinary circumstances of the case. However, Mr Justice Vautier determined that he would not be fulfilling his responsibilities or representing the community's views if he did not impose a custodial sentence. He consequently decided on a one-year sentence for burglary, alongside three years for the charges of rape and sodomy. The court was informed that on the night of the incident, Green had been at the complainant's home for dinner with his de facto wife. Later that night, he returned at approximately 2 a.m., broke into the woman's bedroom, and committed the offences. Green claimed that the woman had consented to the sexual encounter. However, Crown prosecutor Ms Sharon Opai described the act of rape as an expression of pure self-indulgence, opposing the defence’s argument that the act was not violent. She underscored that a woman does not need to suffer visible physical injuries, such as bruises or broken bones, for her complaint to be legitimate, asserting that no woman should have her fundamental rights violated in such a manner. The case illustrates the tense discussions surrounding sexual consent and societal attitudes towards sexual offences in the context of the contemporary legal reforms of the time.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand