DANIEL GOODCHILD FROM MAESTEG RECEIVES SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES IN CHICHESTER
In August 2016, a man from Maesteg named Daniel Goodchild was handed a suspended sentence after admitting to multiple serious charges involving a minor.The case was heard at Chichester Crown Court, where Goodchild, aged 20, faced allegations related to sexual misconduct with a girl he knew was under the age of 16 at the time of the offenses.
Goodchild, who resides on Bayford Road in Littlehampton, pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual activity involving a child.
These included three separate counts of engaging in sexual activity with a minor, one count of coercing or inciting a child to participate in sexual acts, and a charge of sexual activity of a rough nature.
The court's decision resulted in a 12-month prison sentence, but this was suspended for a period of two years, meaning Goodchild would not serve time in prison unless he violated the terms of his probation.
Furthermore, the court imposed additional conditions on Goodchild.
He was ordered to undergo a 12-month supervision period overseen by the probation service, and he was also subject to a sexual harm prevention order.
As part of the legal requirements, he will be registered with the police, ensuring ongoing monitoring of his activities.
During the sentencing, Judge John Hardy addressed the court, noting the gravity of Goodchild’s actions.
He observed that Goodchild’s family and girlfriend were present in the public gallery to witness the proceedings.
The judge emphasized the seriousness of the offences, stating, “You have pleaded guilty to conduct that you know is wrong.
The victim was and is a vulnerable person, and what you did was both wrong and serious.” Judge Hardy also highlighted the importance of the law in regulating relationships and protecting minors.
He pointed out that the law has evolved over thousands of years to distinguish between acceptable and harmful conduct, underscoring the societal importance of such legal standards.
Regarding the charge of sexual activity of a rough nature, the judge revealed that if Goodchild had not ceased his actions when asked by the victim, he could have been convicted of rape, which would have carried a minimum sentence of five years in prison.
The judge clarified that, although the case could have resulted in a custodial sentence, he believed that a suspended sentence combined with supervision would serve the interests of rehabilitation better.
He warned Goodchild that any further misconduct could lead to the activation of his suspended sentence, and he would then face immediate imprisonment.
The court made it clear that Goodchild would be closely monitored during the supervision period, with the possibility of returning to court if he failed to comply with the conditions imposed.
