Former St Peter's School staff member Geoffrey Coker is on trial in the Hamilton District Court defending historic indecent assault charges against young boys. Photo: Supplied / New Zealand Herald / Belinda Feek
Former St Peter's School teacher Geoffrey Coker has been found guilty of all charges relating to historical indecency offending relating to naked piggyback rides and getting two boys to bathe together naked and watching them.
The 75-year-old has been defending the charges in the Hamilton District Court for the past two weeks and Judge Tini Clark sent the jury out to begin their deliberations at 11.50am on Friday and returned just after 4pm.
Coker, who remained emotionless as the verdicts were read out, was convicted by Judge Clark and remanded on bail for sentencing on 9 December.
The nine charges consisted of four of doing an indecent act on a boy under 12 and five of inducing a boy to do an indecent act between 1975 and 1976 around Waikato, including in Hamilton, Matamata, and at his staff apartment at the school near Cambridge.
The allegations involved Coker rubbing his naked body against the naked body of a complainant, asking two boys to bathe together naked and show each other their genitals while he watched them, and indecently touching another boy over his clothes.
The charges came out after St Peter's School 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.
'Their silence does not mean they forgot'
In her summing up this morning, Judge Clark reminded the jury that it was up to them to decide whether the complainants were mistaken or telling the truth about the allegations.
She outlined the Crown's closing by Rebecca Guthrie who said the complainants were "very young and vulnerable" at the time and did not speak out earlier for differing reasons including being kicked out of school and fearing repercussions.
"But their silence does not mean that they forgot," the judge said.
Guthrie had asked the jury not to overcomplicate the task that lay ahead of them and said it was not unusual for people involved in cases of a historical nature not to have all the details firmly imprinted in their minds.
She told them they didn't need to know what life might have been like in the 1970s and said that wasn't necessary to consider the allegations.
The alleged acts were felt to be "unusual or inappropriate" by the complainants and were carried out by Coker who was in a position of trust at the time.
While St Peter's at the time was quite regimented and rules-based, Coker's alleged behaviour was "not part of ordinary schooling in the 1970s", and said the defence case contained some red herrings including whether he was dismissed for improper conduct or whether he resigned.
'Full of holes, denials and doubt'
Defence counsel JD Dallas told the jury they faced an arduous duty but asked them to do it by using common sense and fairness.
He also suggested the allegations were grave for his client, but also "easy to make", however, Judge Clark noted that would be something that the jury would need to decide.
Dallas said that even honest witnesses could be mistaken and urged them to take into account any issues of hostility or bias that the complainants had about Coker.
Coker didn't need to prove or disprove anything and said the Crown case was "full of holes, denials and doubt".
The inconsistencies in the case were so fundamental that they would be left feeling unsure as to what happened which equated to doubt and therefore they should find him not guilty on all charges.
He also criticised the officer in charge, Detective Natasha Lopes, by seemingly accepting the complainants' credibility without questioning whether there had been any inconsistencies.
He said Coker "did not do anything wrong whatsoever" and they should find him innocent.
They instead found him guilty on all nine charges - eight were unanimous and one a majority verdict.
-This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.