Watson v The King - [2025] NZSC 24

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 125/2024
[2025] NZSC 24

BETWEEN	MATHEW RAYMOND CHARLES WATSON Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall KC for Applicant B J Thompson for Respondent
Judgment:	28 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Watson was convicted of ten historic sexual offences and found not guilty on five other charges. He was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment.[1] His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[2] He seeks leave to appeal against that decision.

Proposed appeal against conviction

Background

[1]The sentencing Judge had taken a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment and deducted five per cent for Mr Watson’s lack of previous convictions and good character and 10 per cent for matters raised in the s 27 cultural report: R v Watson [2023] NZDC 12523 (Judge Marshall) [DC sentencing judgment] at [22]–[23] and [25].

[2]Watson v R [2024] NZCA 576 (Palmer, Whata and Downs JJ) [CA judgment].

It is submitted by Mr Watson that the trial should have been aborted after the Crown led inadmissible evidence in relation to the complainant’s sexual experience. A young female relative of Mr Watson (R) testified, among other things, that when the complainant was a child, she (the complainant) had touched her (R) inappropriately putting her fingers in her (R’s) genital area.[3]
[3]Referred to at [11] of the CA judgment.
The trial Judge gave directions on this evidence, including:[4]
The concern is that you may be left with the impression that the only way that [the complainant] might know about that is because she is replicating behaviour that Mr Watson must have perpetrated on her. I want to give you a strong direction that you cannot draw that conclusion. The defence have not had the opportunity of questioning [the complainant] about that or where she might have acquired that knowledge or indeed whether she considers this even happened at all.
So I give you direction, as I say, in a fair trial context that you should draw no adverse inference or conclusion against Mr Watson because that evidence has been given. So I will also remind you of that when I give you directions at the conclusion of the case also.

Court of Appeal decision

[4]Set out at [13] of CA judgment.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no miscarriage of justice. The Court accepted the evidence was inadmissible but said:
[29] In summary, the error did not occasion a miscarriage of justice because of: the confined nature of the inadmissible evidence; the absence of further reference to it; the Judge’s “strong” directions to the jury about the evidence; the appellate discretion attaching to the Judge’s associated decision(s);

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Watson v The King [2025] NZSC 24
Case: [2025] NZSC 24
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Mathew Raymond Charles Watson sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for historic sexual offences, which had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether there was sufficient ground to grant Watson leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court considered two main points: the admissibility of certain evidence presented during the trial and the appropriateness of the sentence discount for undue delay.

The Court reviewed the trial evidence, particularly the inadmissible testimony regarding the complainant's alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour. Although the trial judge had provided strong directions to the jury to disregard this evidence, the Court of Appeal found no miscarriage of justice due to the limited scope of the inadmissible evidence and the judge's clear directions. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion and that there was no error of principle or risk of a miscarriage of justice in this regard.

Regarding the sentence, Watson argued that he deserved an additional 15 per cent discount due to the undue delay before his trial. The Court of Appeal had dismissed this argument, citing uncertainty over whether the delay was justifiable and undue. The Supreme Court found no basis to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision, concluding that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the nature of the offences. The Supreme Court held that there was no error of principle or risk of a miscarriage of justice, thereby dismissing the application for leave to appeal.

Orders