R v Watts - [2015] NZHC 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-003858 [2015] NZHC 1224

THE QUEEN

v

DUNCAN KEREAMA WATTS

Hearing: 4 June 2015

Appearances:

M J Robb for Crown
M Bates for Defendant

Judgment:

4 June 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J

R v WATTS [2015] NZHC 1224 [4 June 2015]

Charges

[1] Mr Watts, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty on 6 May

2015 to one charge of aggravated robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of

14 years’ imprisonment, and one charge of participation in an organised criminal group, for which the maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment.

Relevant facts

[2] You and a co-offender Mr Mark, who is also to be sentenced shortly, are both associated with the Westside Outlaws gang which operates in Hamilton.

[3] Shortly before 10 o’clock on the night of 12 April 2014, you and Mr Mark, together with a third offender, went to the Frankton TAB. You were all disguised and wearing gloves. You and the third offender were armed, you with a knife, and the third offender with a rifle. You all entered the premises at around 5 to 10, it was a Saturday evening.

[4] At that time, two staff members were working and there were patrons present. You and the third offender jumped over the counter and demanded that the staff members open the safe. Mr Mark remained in the customer area of the building and, although he was unarmed, he detained the patrons there.

[5] In the rear area of the shop, which is the staff area, the manager entered the combination to open the safe and explained to you and the third offender that the safe would not open immediately because it had a time delay setting. At this point, the third offender pointed his rifle at the two staff members. When one of them tried to push the gun away, there was a scuffle and the staff member was punched and subdued. The third offender then repeatedly tried to shoot that staff member in the head, but the rifle would not fire.

[6] In the meantime, you stole cash from the counter drawers and also took personal property from the manager. After your group became frustrated with the delay in opening the safe, you all fled through the front door. Vouchers and cash

totalling about $3,200 was taken, as was cash and a cellphone owned by the TAB

manager, in the order of about $1,500, and none of that has been recovered.

[7] The offending was planned by way of text messaging, and the offending relied on the use of a firearm which had earlier been stolen from a private address. It is evident that there was planning, by text, of other crimes but these do not appear to have come to fruition.

Victim impact statements

[8] Today I have read two victim impact statements. You have heard one of the victims, Mr Cunneen, speaking in Court and he spoke as to the extreme impact…

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 [2015] NZHC 1224
Case: [2015] NZHC 1224
Decision Date: 4 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Duncan Kereama Watts appeared before the High Court of New Zealand for sentencing on charges of aggravated robbery and participation in an organised criminal group. The charges stemmed from a planned robbery at the Frankton TAB in Hamilton, where Watts, along with accomplices, attempted to rob the premises using weapons and disguises. The group targeted the commercial premises, intending to steal money from the safe and cash drawers, but the safe's time delay mechanism thwarted their immediate success. The incident caused significant emotional and financial harm to the victims, including the TAB manager and staff.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate starting point for Watts' sentence, considering the gravity of the aggravated robbery and the gang involvement. The Crown argued for a starting point of eight to eight and a half years, citing factors such as the level of planning, the use of dangerous weapons, and the impact on the victims. In contrast, the defence suggested a lower starting point of six to six and a half years, highlighting mitigating factors such as the relatively small amount of money taken and the lack of loaded firearms. The court considered these submissions and relevant case law before setting a starting point of seven years and three months.

In sentencing Watts, the court applied the principles of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. The judge acknowledged Watts' genuine remorse and his expressed desire to engage in rehabilitative programs. A discount of five months was allowed for Watts' late guilty pleas and his remorse, resulting in a final sentence of five years and ten months for aggravated robbery, to be served concurrently with four months for participation in a criminal group. The court decided against imposing a minimum period of imprisonment, leaving the decision of parole eligibility to the Parole Board.

The final orders of the court included Watts being sentenced to five years and ten months for aggravated robbery and four months for participation in a criminal group, to be served concurrently. Watts was discharged on three other charges due to the Crown offering no evidence on those counts.

Orders