Watson v Police - [2023] NZHC 1681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2023-412-15

[2023] NZHC 1681

BETWEEN
JAMES RICHARD WATSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 June 2023

Appearances:

B P Stephenson for Appellant C J Flatley for Respondent

Judgment:

3 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2023 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WATSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1681 [3 July 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Watson was sentenced to 28.5 months’ imprisonment by Judge Turner in the District Court1 in respect of the following charges:

(a)threatening behaviour;2

(b)dangerous driving;3

(c)kidnapping;4

(d)assault on a person in a family relationship;5 and

(e)attempting to pervert the course of justice.6

[2] Mr Watson appeals this sentence on the grounds the Judge did not allow sufficient credit for mitigating factors.

Facts

[3] Mr Watson is the former partner of the victim. They did not live together at the time of the offending, and the relationship was described as “off-and-on again” over a period of about two years. The victim has a young daughter from a previous relationship.

[4] In October 2021, Mr Watson was discharged without conviction following his guilty plea to a charge of assaulting the same victim. On 23 November, he contacted the victim, wanting to visit her home. The victim said no. At around 5 pm, Mr Watson arrived at her address. Mr Watson let himself in and began abusing her, threatening to kill her. He made as if to punch her while she was holding her daughter. He did not

1      R v Watson [2023] NZDC 1717.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 3; maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500. The court must also order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for at least 6 months.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 209; maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, s 194A; maximum penalty 2 years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, s 117(e); maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.

leave for two to three hours. That incident gave rise to the threatening behaviour charge.

[5] About six weeks later, on the night of 7 January 2022, the victim and her daughter were driving. Mr Watson saw them and attempted to run their vehicle off the road, causing the victim to pull over. He approached her vehicle and began banging aggressively on the driver’s window until the victim unlocked the door. He then removed the keys from the ignition and took the victim’s cell phone. After parking his own car, Mr Watson returned to the victim’s vehicle with a beer bottle. He hit her on the arm with the bottle before handing her keys back and demanding she drive them to her home. Once there, Mr Watson told the victim to go shower…

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 Watson v Police

Details

AGLC: Watson v Police [2023] NZHC 1681
Case: [2023] NZHC 1681
Decision Date: 3 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, James Richard Watson, was convicted in the District Court of various charges including kidnapping, dangerous driving, assault on a person in a family relationship, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. He appeals the sentence imposed by Judge Turner, arguing that the court did not sufficiently credit mitigating factors. The District Court Judge sentenced Watson to 28.5 months' imprisonment, applying various uplifts and discounts to a starting point of two years for the kidnapping charge. The appeal was considered on the basis of whether there was an error in the imposition of the sentence warranting a different outcome.

The court examined the arguments regarding the discount for personal background matters, remorse and rehabilitation, and time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail. The court found that while there was a link between Watson's background and his offending, the 15% discount for personal background factors adequately reflected all relevant mitigating factors. Regarding remorse and rehabilitation, the court acknowledged the letter of remorse written by Watson but concluded that it was open to the Judge to package this within the overall discount. The court also found no error in the Judge's refusal to allow a credit for time spent on EM bail, as Watson's non-compliance with the bail conditions negated any credit he might have been allowed.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court, finding no significant error in the imposition of the sentence. The sentence of 28.5 months' imprisonment was deemed appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the victim.

Orders