R v Watts
[2025] NZHC 669
•26 March 2025
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 at the scene was justified and that it was essential you protect your friend, [redacted]. The report states that this reflects a troubling mindset, where accountability and empathy towards direct victims appear to be absent.
[8] You maintain that your actions during the incident were motivated by a desire to protect your friend and his family, even though you acknowledge that you did not think through the consequences of your actions. You believe your intentions to have been noble amid the events that escalated on the afternoon in question.
[9] The report recommends a sentence of intensive supervision so as to facilitate comprehensive oversight of your community integration and engagement in rehabilitation programmes.
Sentence
[10] You have now effectively served any sentence of imprisonment the court could impose upon you. However, I do not consider it is time for you to have no constraints on your future conduct. I consider a sentence of intensive supervision to be appropriate given the disturbing mindset you currently display. I acknowledge that this may be attributable in part to your youth because you are still just 18 years of age. However, unless you are closely supervised over the next few years it is virtually inevitable that you will be before the courts again for offending of this type.
8 At [18].
[11] I sentence you to intensive supervision for a period of two years. You are to serve the sentence on the recommended special conditions attached to the pre-sentence report dated 17 March 2025.
Suppression
[12] [Redacted] has yet to stand trial. I suppress his name from publication until this trial has concluded.
Lang J
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS PROHIBITED BY S 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2024-004-7259
[2025] NZHC 380
THE KING v
DESTRY JOE WATTS
Hearing: 4 March 2025 Appearances:
F M T Culliney and V V Sudhakar for Crown J J Corby for Defendant
Indication:
4 March 2025
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
R v WATTS [2025] NZHC 380 [4 March 2025]
[1] Mr Watts has pleaded not guilty to 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. His trial is scheduled to commence in this Court on 3 November 2025.
[2] Mr Watts seeks a sentence indication based on an agreed summary of facts. This is an indication of the sentence that would be imposed if he was to enter guilty pleas to both charges within the period fixed at the end of this indication. If he does not accept the indication, it will be of no further effect. In that event, the sentence to be imposed on Mr Watts will be fixed by the trial Judge based on the facts as he or she finds them to be.
Approach
[3] In their written submissions, counsel asked me to fix the discounts to be given for matters such as Mr Watts’ youth (19 years) and cooperation with the police. As I advised counsel in a minute issued prior to the hearing, I consider those are matters that are to be canvassed at sentencing rather than at a sentence indication. I therefore decline to provide an indication of the discounts to be given to reflect them. My indication will be restricted to fixing starting points on both charges and the discount to be given for guilty pleas.
Background
[4] The charges were laid as a result of an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 5 September 2024. It initially involved a verbal altercation between two opposing groups of young people. It culminated in a member of Mr Watts’ group, [redacted], removing a long-barrelled .22 calibre rifle from a vehicle. He then aimed it at persons in the opposing group and discharged four shots in their direction. This resulted in one of the group receiving a fatal injury whilst three others received less serious gunshot wounds.
[5] When the shots were fired, one member of the opposing group immediately collapsed to the ground before getting to his feet and departing from the scene. The
remaining members of the group ran away immediately. The person who subsequently died collapsed a short distance away.
[6] After members of the opposing group ran away, Mr Watts used his elbow to smash the window in a vehicle owned by a member of the other group. He then drove [redacted] and the firearm away from the scene. Mr Watts subsequently took possession of the firearm and buried it in a planter box at an address occupied by his partner. This was some distance away from the address where the shootings had occurred.
[7] Mr Watts did not become aware that a person had died as a result of the shooting until the following day. For that reason, he has been charged with being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so.
[8] The police arrested Mr Watts two days after the shootings on 7 September 2024. At the time of his arrest, they located a 30 cm long knife housed in a sheath down the front of his shorts. This led to the charge of being in possession of an offensive weapon.
[9] On 11 November 2024, the police accompanied Mr Watts’ lawyer to the prison where he was being held in custody – where Mr Watts was being held in custody. He then told them where he had buried the firearm and they were able to recover it from the planter box.
Starting points
Accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm
[10] The crime of being an accessory after the fact to a crime can be committed in a wide variety of ways. For that reason there is no tariff, or guideline, judgment of the appellate courts available for this type of offending.
[11] The aggravating features of Mr Watts’ offending are that he assisted [redacted] by driving him and the firearm away from the scene. By his plea he would acknowledge doing so knowing that at least one person had been intentionally shot
and badly injured. Mr Watts then attempted to thwart the ensuing police investigation by burying the firearm in the planter box at his partner’s address.
[12] The Crown submits that this offending would attract a starting point of around 16 months imprisonment. Mr Corby submits on Mr Watts’ behalf that a starting point of 12 months imprisonment is appropriate. Both counsel have referred me to authorities in support of their respective positions.9
[13] The fact that Mr Watts was prepared to drive [redacted] and the firearm away from the scene may possibly be explained as a panic-stricken reaction to what had just occurred. It would not be regarded particularly seriously on a stand-alone basis. However, the decision to bury the firearm in the planter box was a considered one that Mr Watts made in the knowledge that it would thwart the police investigation that he must have known would inevitably take place given the fact that people had been shot and badly injured. He then did not advise the police of the location of the firearm for approximately two months. I consider the aggravating features of this offending justify a starting point of 18 months imprisonment.
Being in possession of an offensive weapon
[14] The Crown contends an uplift of six months imprisonment would be appropriate for the charge of being in possession of an offensive weapon. Mr Corby suggests an uplift of four months.
[15] I consider a sentence of at least six months imprisonment would ordinarily be justified having regard to the nature of the knife Mr Watts was carrying at the time of his arrest. It was plainly being carried for unlawful purposes. However, having regard to totality principles I propose to apply an uplift of four months.
[16] It follows that I consider an end starting point on both charges of 22 months imprisonment to be justified.
9 R v Duncan [2012] NZHC 1814. This sentence was upheld on appeal, see Duncan v R [2013] NZCA 354; R v Bracken [2021] NZHC 2615; R v Boon-Harris [2024] NZHC 1887; R v Duncan & Tahuri [2012] NZHC 184.
Aggravating factors
[17] Mr Watts has no previous convictions or notations in the Youth Court. The Crown therefore accepts there should be no uplift to reflect aggravating factors personal to Mr Watts. However, the Crown points out that he nevertheless has a concerning history of being discharged in the Youth Court under s 282 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. The Crown submits this means he should not receive any discount to reflect previous good character. If Mr Watts accepts this indication I will address the issue of his history in the Youth Court at sentencing in the context of the discount to be given to Mr Watts to reflect his youth.
Discount for guilty pleas
[18] The charges that Mr Watts originally faced were much more serious. They included a charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The charges were not reduced until the Crown filed an amended Crown Charge Notice on 24 January 2025. The Crown therefore accepts that Mr Watts should receive a full discount of 25 per cent to reflect guilty pleas. I would therefore be prepared to apply a discount of five months to reflect guilty pleas.
[19] Other discounts may be available at sentencing. For present purposes, however, the indicated sentence is one of 17 months imprisonment.
Acceptance of indication
[20] After taking instructions, Mr Corby advised me that Mr Watts accepted the indication. He was then arraigned and entered guilty pleas to Charges 5 and 6 in the current version of the Crown Charge Notice.
Lang J
0
3
0