R v Watts - [2025] NZHC 669

NOTE: SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST – SEE PARAGRAPH [12]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2024-004-7259

[2025] NZHC 669

THE KING

v

DESTRY JOE WATTS

Hearing: 26 March 2025

Appearances:

F M T Culliney for Crown J J Corby for Defendant

Sentence:

26 March 2025

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland J J Corby, Barrister, Auckland

R v WATTS [2025] NZHC 669 [26 March 2025]

[1] Mr Watts, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to charges of being an accessory after the fact to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm1 and being in possession of an offensive weapon.2 The maximum penalty available on the first charge is five years imprisonment3 whilst that on the second charge is three years imprisonment.4

[2] You entered your pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 4 March 2025.5 The indication will be annexed to these remarks and will form part of them. It is therefore not necessary for me to traverse all the factual background set out in the sentence indication.

[3] In short, however, you were part of a group of young persons who were involved in an altercation with another group on the afternoon of 5 September 2024. The altercation culminated in a member of your group, [redacted], shooting four members of the opposing group. One of these persons received a fatal injury whilst the others received less serious gunshot wounds.

[4] You then drove [redacted] and the firearm away from the scene. You took possession of the firearm and buried it in a planter box at an address occupied by your partner. The firearm remained in that location for approximately two months before you advised the police where you had hidden it.

The sentence indication

[5] I took a starting point of 18 months imprisonment on the charge of being an accessory after the fact.6 I then added an uplift of four months to reflect the charge of being in unlawful possession of an offensive weapon.7 This resulted in a starting point on both charges of 22 months imprisonment.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 71.
2      Section 202A(4)(a).
3      Section 312.
4      Section 202A(4).
5      R v Watts [2025] NZHC 380.
6 At [13].
7 At [15].

[6] I then applied a discount of 25 per cent to reach an indicated sentence of 17 months imprisonment.8 I advised you at the time that other discounts may be available at sentencing.

The pre-sentence report

[7] The pre-sentence report does not cast you in a favourable light. It states that you displayed a notable lack of remorse for the victims of the incident, expressing indifference to their plight and stating that you felt sympathy only for the families affected. You told the report writer that, if you found yourself in the same position again, you would act in the same way. You said you believed that your presence…

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 Watts

Details

AGLC: R v Watts [2025] NZHC 669
Case: [2025] NZHC 669
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Destry Joe Watts appeared in the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on charges of being an accessory after the fact to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and being in possession of an offensive weapon. The case arose from a violent altercation involving two groups of young people on 5 September 2024. Watts was involved in assisting the person who carried out the shooting, [redacted], by driving him and the firearm away from the scene and subsequently burying the firearm to obstruct the police investigation. The legal issues before the court involved determining appropriate starting points for each charge and applying any relevant discounts or uplifts, particularly in light of Watts' age and his decision to plead guilty. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors and the pre-sentence report, which highlighted Watts' lack of remorse and troubling mindset.

In deciding the sentence, the court considered the seriousness of Watts' actions, particularly his decision to bury the firearm and hinder the police investigation. The court acknowledged Watts' youth but emphasised the need for close supervision to prevent future offending. The court found the aggravating factors justified a starting point of 18 months for the accessory charge and an uplift of four months for the possession of an offensive weapon, leading to a total starting point of 22 months. A discount of 25 per cent was applied for Watts' guilty pleas, resulting in an indicated sentence of 17 months imprisonment. However, given Watts' current mindset and the risk of reoffending, the court opted for a sentence of intensive supervision for two years instead of imprisonment.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of intensive supervision for Watts for a period of two years, to be served on the special conditions recommended in the pre-sentence report. The court also issued a suppression order preventing the publication of the name of [redacted], who has yet to stand trial, until his trial concludes. This order aims to ensure fair proceedings for all parties involved.

Orders