Waho v The King - [2025] NZHC 2919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2025-454-23

[2025] NZHC 2919

BETWEEN
MARCUS DANA WAHO

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 1 October 2025

Appearances:

T E Hesketh for Appellant

A M Barham for Respondent

Judgment:

3 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] On 27 June 2025, Judge Krebs sentenced the appellant to two years and four months’ imprisonment for the following charges:1

(a)drove while disqualified (3rd or subsequent);2

(b)driver gave false information as to own identity;3

(c)presenting object which, in the circumstances, was likely to lead a person to believe that it was a firearm;4

1      Police v Waho [2025] NZDC 14899.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (4) — maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment or
$6,000; and disqualification from holding or obtaining drivers’ license for one year or more.
3      Sections 52(1)(c), 52A(2) and 114(3)(b) — maximum penalty of $10,000.
4      Arms Act 1983, s 52(2) — maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or $10,000.

WAHO v R [2025] NZHC 2919 [3 October 2025]

(d)threatening language;5

(e) burglary ($500–$5,000);6 and

(f) common assault.7

[2] The appellant now appeals his sentence on the basis that the Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the appellant’s personal factors and the connection between those factors and the offending.

The offending

Driving-related offences

[3] The appellant was disqualified from driving any motor vehicle for a period of six months commencing on 16 June 2023. On 19 October 2023, the police stopped the appellant at a traffic stop.

[4] When the police asked for the appellant’s details, he provided the name and date of birth of his sibling. After the police challenged the defendant on that information, he provided his correct details and was subsequently arrested.

Presenting object like firearm at person and threatening language

[5] On 7 November 2023, the appellant arrived at the victim’s address and began arguing about a trespass matter. During the argument, the defendant exited his vehicle and pointed what was thought to be a sawn-off shotgun at the victim. The victim ran backwards and yelled “he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun”. The defendant proceeded to put the object into his pants and said, “I’m going to get you”.

5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(a) — maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or
$2,000.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(1)(a) — maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
7      Section 196 — maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment.

Burglary

[6] On 17 August 2024, the defendant and an unknown associate drove to a business called Storming Bikes on Andrew Young Street in Palmerston North. He then reversed the vehicle into the store, smashing through the doors and causing extensive damage. The defendant and his associate entered the store and removed five motorcycle helmets, valued at $900 in total, and six motorcross shirts, valued at $360 in total.

Common assault

[7] The offending occurred on 6 December 2024 in the…

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 Waho v The King

Details

AGLC: Waho v The King [2025] NZHC 2919
Case: [2025] NZHC 2919
Decision Date: 3 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Waho v The King involved Marcus Dana Waho, who appealed his sentence imposed by the District Court. Waho had been sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment for multiple charges, including driving while disqualified, providing false information to police, presenting an object likely to be mistaken for a firearm, threatening language, burglary, and common assault. Waho argued that the District Court judge failed to sufficiently consider his personal factors, including his upbringing and drug addiction, when determining his sentence.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the District Court judge correctly balanced the appellant’s personal circumstances against other sentencing principles and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence, including a cultural report, a Hōkai Tapuwae report, and a letter from a rehabilitation programme, which were not before the District Court. The Crown did not oppose the admission of this evidence.

The Court found that while the appellant’s background and efforts at rehabilitation were relevant, the District Court judge had appropriately considered these factors in light of Waho's extensive criminal history. The Court highlighted that for repetitive offenders, other sentencing principles such as denunciation, deterrence, and community protection should take precedence over personal background factors. The Judge had rationally determined that the appellant's continuous offending justified the application of other sentencing principles over reductions based on personal circumstances. Consequently, the Court concluded that the District Court judge's decision was within the appropriate sentencing range and dismissed the appeal.

The Court’s judgment emphasized that while personal background factors could influence sentencing, they must be balanced against the nature and extent of the offending. In cases of persistent offending, as with Waho, other sentencing principles are paramount. The Court did not find the sentence manifestly excessive and affirmed the District Court's decision.

Orders