On July 13 this year, Gobbie had special dispensation by the Corrections Department to enter Gisborne — his “exclusion zone” — for a drug test. He was to go directly to the facility and was not to make any deviations en route and had signed an agreement to that effect.
However, on arriving in the city at 8.40am he breached the arrangement by driving around and making unapproved stops before heading to the facility at 9.30am. Later, his results showed a positive result for cannabis — a second breach of the ESO.
On July 19, police went to an address on the East Coast to serve a breach document on Gobbie and discovered a girl under 16 in the house. Gobbie had been there for about an hour-and-a-half knowing full well he wasn’t allowed to be around the child, but deciding to remain there regardless, Judge Cathcart said.
Police spotted him again in the company of a child on August 4, this time directly outside Tolaga Bay Area School. Gobbie and an associate — who had his toddler with him -—were each on horses. The associate told police he didn’t know Gobbie wasn’t allowed to be with people under 16.
Counsel Mana Taumaunu said Gobbie had struggled to come to terms with just how easily he could breach the order, for example, just by being in a shop when a child was there.
Gobbie had to concede that unless he “learnt his lesson” from being jailed for these offences, he could be “staring down the barrel of imprisonment for silly things like riding horses” and could potentially end up behind bars until the order finally expires in April, 2027, Mr Taumaunu said.
Counsel submitted a starting point of eight months for the lead offence — the horse riding one — with lesser stand-alone sentences to apply cumulatively for the other offences and a final adjustment for totality.
The judge agreed. He noted Gobbie had twice been inducted into an understanding of the order and conditions with which he must abide.
“I don’t accept your contention to a pre-sentence report writer that you didn’t fully understand the requirements. As you know, I was the judge who imposed the ESO and have knowledge of the background to it and of your utter rejection of culpability. It’s that (denial), which in my view, has led to this repeated offending,” the judge said.
■ According to the Department of Corrections website, a person on extended supervision will be actively monitored and supervised by Corrections for as long as they pose a real and ongoing risk of further serious sexual or violent offending.
A person on an order is subject to requirements similar to parole. This means they:
• will have to report to their probation officer regularly
• may be obliged to attend treatment programmes and counselling
• will be subject to residence and employment constraints
• will be subject to restrictions about contact with their victims and other people or groups of people
• may be subject to electronic monitoring, GPS and restrictions on where they can live.
Special conditions could also apply, such as restrictions on being in certain places and doing certain activities.
The highest risk people may be placed under home detention-like conditions and electronic monitoring may be imposed as a special condition.
Some extremely high risk offenders may be monitored by another person for up to 24 hours a day for the first 12 months of their extended supervision order.
If someone breaches their order they may be charged in court and, if convicted, could be sentenced to up to two years’ imprisonment.
