R v Waho - [2025] NZHC 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-031-001144

[2025] NZHC 1404

THE KING

v

MARCUS DANA WAHO

Hearing: 30 May 2025

Counsel:

G J Burston and R S Bedggood for Crown P H Surridge for Defendant

Sentence

30 May 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF LA HOOD J

[1] Mr Waho, I am now going to sentence you, you having pleaded guilty to the charge of arson that I have completed giving you a sentence indication in relation to. I am not going to rehearse everything set out in the sentence indication, or the reasons for the sentence that I am about to impose. I have nothing further to add about it.1

[2] I am going to sentence you to two years’ imprisonment with special release conditions. They are going to be the release conditions set out in the email from Corrections dated 28 May 2025 as follows:2

1 The reasons for the sentence indication are set out in an appendix to this judgment.
2 Although not stated in my oral decision, in accordance with s 93 of the Sentencing Act, I specify that the standard and special release conditions expire six months after the sentence expiry date.

R v WAHO [2025] NZHC 1404 [30 May 2025]

(a)To attend an alcohol and other drug assessment and attend and complete any treatment/counselling, including residential treatment programmes, as recommended by the assessment to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and treatment provider.

(b)Not to possess, consume or use any alcohol or drugs not prescribed to you.

(c)Not to contact directly or indirectly any victims of your offending, unless approved in writing by a Probation Officer.

(d)To attend an assessment for a Departmental programme and if found suitable to attend and complete the programme to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and the programme provider, subject to programme availability.

(e)To attend a maintenance programme on the completion of a Departmental programme to the satisfaction and as directed by the Probation Officer.

La Hood J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington Mana Law, Porirua for Defendant

APPENDIX

SENTENCE INDICATION ON 28 MAY 2025

MARCUS WAHO

[1] Dealing first with Marcus Waho. He appears for a sentence indication on one charge of arson under s 267(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, as a party.3

The alleged offending

[2] I will start with the facts of the offending as set out in the agreed summary of facts filed for the purpose of this indication.

[3] On 27 September 2023, at 1.30 am, Quentin Waho-Marsden texted Mr Waho, saying “Safe my kuzz when your ready kuzz I’ll fill you in on what im gonna do it’s gonna sound hard out but it’s upto you if you wonna ride shot gun with me”. Mr Waho replied “Allgood kuzzy im there just wait for this 1 to drop me off”. Mr Waho- Marsden then asked if police were patrolling, to which Mr Waho replied he had not seen any and then said…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Waho

Details

AGLC: R v Waho [2025] NZHC 1404
Case: [2025] NZHC 1404
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Waho, the defendant, Marcus Dana Waho, faced a charge of arson under section 267(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The case was heard by La Hood J in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Mr Waho, who had pleaded guilty to his involvement in the arson of a residential property.

The legal issues before the court included determining an appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and deciding on the special release conditions that would accompany any custodial sentence. The Crown argued for a starting point of two and a half to three years’ imprisonment, taking into account the premeditation and planning involved, the extent of the damage caused by the fire, and the inherent danger posed to nearby residents. Conversely, the defence argued for a starting point not exceeding two years’ imprisonment, highlighting Mr Waho’s limited role in the offence and seeking a 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea.

La Hood J carefully evaluated the arguments presented by both the Crown and the defence. The court accepted that while there was premeditation and planning involved, Mr Waho played a less culpable role compared to his co-defendant, Quentin Waho-Marsden, who was acting to conceal his own serious offending. The court also noted the extensive damage to the property, which was initially estimated to be in the range of $10,000 but later revised to approximately $180,000. Given these factors, La Hood J determined a starting point of two and a half years’ imprisonment to be appropriate. The court further considered mitigating factors, such as Mr Waho's upbringing and personal background, awarding a five per cent credit. Ultimately, the court decided on a final sentence of two years’ imprisonment, with special release conditions as recommended by Corrections.

La Hood J specified that the special release conditions would include mandatory participation in alcohol and drug treatment, a prohibition on contact with victims, and attendance at a maintenance programme. The court also noted that the standard and special release conditions would expire six months after the sentence expiry date. This decision reflects a balanced approach, taking into account both the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders