In his decision, Justice Lang said the girl attended one of the Kidz World daycare centres and attended after-school and holiday programmes run by the company.
When the girl was 15 and no longer enrolled as a child at Kidz World, the pair began sending personal text messages to each other.
Goldsbury bought a separate phone and SIM card that he used to contact the girl secretly.
The relationship began to involve physical contact and eventually led to sexual intercourse, the decision said.
In total, it is estimated Goldsbury had sexual intercourse with the girl about 20 times while she was 15.
During this time, Goldsbury would buy the girl gifts and he became possessive and jealous when she would spend time with male friends.
The decision said Goldsbury would threaten to hurt himself if she didn’t spend time with him.
After the girl turned 16, her mother discovered text messages on her daughter’s phone and alerted Goldsbury’s wife, who immediately told him to sever all contact with the girl, the decision said.
Neither family was aware at that stage the pair had been engaging in sexual activity for many months.
Some years later when the girl was having counselling for other reasons, she disclosed the offending and went to police, the decision said.
Goldsbury denied sexual intercourse had taken place but entered a guilty plea to the charge.
Victim impact statements from the girl and her mother were read to the court at Goldsbury’s sentencing in March, which the Rotorua Daily Post was present for.
The girl said in her statement that while the offending happened when she was 15, she was groomed from a young age while in his care at after-school programmes and school holiday programmes.
When the offending began, she said he would give her gifts and compliment how she looked, and in return would expect sexual favours.
She said the offending impacted her in years to come and she was made to feel “guilty and ashamed” and that it was her fault.
She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression.
The girl’s mother said in her victim impact statement she had nightmares about what Goldsbury did to her daughter and guilt often kept her up at night because she didn’t protect her daughter.
She said she had “trusted” him.
The mother said it was supposed to be her job to keep her daughter safe.
“I feel stupid for not knowing what was going on.”
Goldsbury’s lawyer, Annabel Cresswell, appealed the sentence handed down by Judge Eddie Paul in March on the grounds the judge selected a starting point that was too high, he failed to apply an adequate discount to reflect Goldsbury’s mental health issues and he applied an insufficient discount to reflect the payment of $1000 Goldsbury made to the victim for emotional harm reparation.
Justice Lang dismissed all grounds for appeal, but acknowledged the starting point should have been lower. For that, he reduced the end sentence to two years and five months’ imprisonment.
Cresswell said name suppression ought to have been granted to Goldsbury’s wife and company name - and therefore Goldsbury’s name as well.
She said her client’s wife, who was not named in the decision, and Kidz World would suffer undue hardship because people reading about Goldsbury’s offending would wrongly think it happened with a young person while they were in the care of the daycare centres operated by Kidz World.
Cresswell said this would in turn have serious economic consequences for Goldsbury’s wife and business because clients would not be prepared to entrust the care of their children to the daycare centres.
Justice Lang’s decision recapped Judge Paul’s original decision that said it was difficult to see how any parent considering putting their child at Kidz World with Goldbury’s wife could objectively think ill or bad of her just because of her husband’s offending, given her good reputation and the measures she had put in place to ensure child safety at her facility.
Judge Paul said open justice played a significant part and he was mindful the victim did not support continued suppression.
He said there was nothing presented to him that would reach the threshold of an undue risk of hardship.
Justice Lang said an unfortunate fact about criminal offending was it commonly created adverse consequences for people closely associated with an offender and that was to be expected to a certain extent.
He said those who took care to examine the facts would know it was not the case the offending happened while the girl was being cared for at the daycare centre.
“There is therefore no cause for those who learn about the offending to conclude that the daycare centres are unable to protect the safety of children in their care.”
