Watson v The King
[2025] NZHC 2519
•1 September 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2025-404-000330
[2025] NZHC 2519
BETWEEN EUGENE WATSON
Appellant
AND
THE KING
Respondent
Hearing: 1 September 2025 Appearances:
D Taumihau for Appellant
P Puertollano for Respondent
Judgment:
1 September 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
[Appeal against sentence]
Solicitors: Public Defence Service, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau Auckland
WATSON v R [2025] NZHC 2519 [1 September 2025]
[1] Eugene Watson pleaded guilty to charges of strangulation, assault with a weapon, two charges of male assaults female, and a representative charge of threatening to kill.
[2] On 14 May 2025 Judge N R Webby sentenced Mr Watson to three years, five months’ imprisonment.1 Mr Watson appeals. He argues the end sentence was manifestly excessive because primarily the Judge erred by adopting too high a starting point and by failing to provide sufficient discounts for youth and other personal factors.
[3] The appeal was lodged out of time. The Crown accepts the reason for the delay and accepts it is not prejudiced. The Crown does not oppose leave being granted.
[4] I take the summary of Mr Watson’s offending from the District Court Judge’s sentencing notes.
[2] All of your offending was against a young woman called [P] (the victim). She was 17 years old at the time. You were 22 years old. You first met her on a train two months before your offending against her.
[3] One day in early May 2024, she saw you at South Mall, Manurewa. You invited her to have a smoke at your house. She agreed to that. You and the victim walked to your house on Arbor Close, Manurewa. You asked her to be your girlfriend. You expressed your love for her. The two of you had sex. While she was on your bed you forced yourself on top of her and sat on her chest, holding her down on the bed. She moved around and shook the bed in an attempt to get you off her. You then wrapped a white extension cord around her neck and choked her with it, pulling the cord, and restricting her breathing. This lasted for about 30 seconds. She was unable to talk so tapped you to try and get you off her chest. Eventually you got off her and then you laughed at her. You kissed her and apologised. You gave her hickeys on her neck which covered the marks that you had caused with the cord. You then went with her to take her back to her sister’s address.
[4] On 6 May 2024 she returned to your address. The remaining offences were committed while she was at your address between 6 and 10 May 2024.
[5] One morning she was making breakfast in the kitchen. You began punching and kicking her because she was biting her nails. One of the kicks knocked her into the sharp corner of the kitchen sink causing a cut to her leg. She dropped to the ground, and you continued punching and kicking
1 R v Watson [2025] NZDC 10759.
her while she was on the ground. You told her to go into her room while you made her breakfast. You made the victim come into the lounge. You grabbed a vacuum cleaner pole and began threatening to smash and kill members of her family with the pole. At one point you struck the victim’s legs with the vacuum cleaner pole.
[6] Over the course of these days, whenever she said she wanted to go home you would punch and kick her. That happened on a number of occasions. You would also tell her that you would say when she could go home. You would often threaten to kill her and her family. You would also tell her that you loved her, but she would break your heart. You told her that you would kill her if she left. You threatened her on a daily basis.
[7] Eventually on 10 May 2024, you both heard someone knock on the door at the address. You opened the door. It was the victim’s sister. You tried to tell her that the victim was alright. However, the victim saw her sister and then ran out to safety.
[8]She sustained:
(a)bruises to both of her shins;
(b)red bruising above her eyes;
(c)red bruising just below both eyes;
(d)redness and tenderness over both cheekbones;
(e)a bruise and split to her inner left, lower lip;
(f)multiple suction bruises to her neck;
(g)bruising on her right upper arm;
(h)bruising above her right breast,
(i)a seven-centimetre abrasion down the outer aspect of her left upper thigh.
[9] Upon your arrest you stated: “I don’t give a fuck what she says, you're gonna lose this one [P], you’re done.” In explanation you admitted that the victim was at your address. However, you declined to make any further comment to the police. You have previously appeared before the Court.
[5] In structuring the sentence the District Court Judge took the charge of strangulation as the lead charge and applied a starting point of three years, four months for that offending. He then considered that an uplift of 16 months was required to reflect the balance of Mr Watson’s offending having regard to totality. Finally the Judge uplifted that adjusted sentence by two months for Mr Watson’s previous convictions for violence, which disclosed a propensity for violence.
[6] The Judge then applied a 15 per cent discount for a guilty plea and a further three months (or approximately five percent) for youth as Mr Watson was aged 22 at the time of the offending and finally, one month for Mr Watson’s participation in three one-hour sessions of a rehabilitative programme.
Approach to the appeal
[7] The Court must allow the appeal against sentence if satisfied for any reason that there is an error in the sentence and a different sentence should be imposed, but otherwise it must dismiss the appeal. In Tutakangahau v R the Court of Appeal confirmed the focus remains on the end sentence imposed rather than the process by which it was reached and that the principles of manifestly excessive and manifestly inadequate sentence still apply.2
The starting point
[8] In Shramka v R the Court of Appeal identified three categories for the offence of strangulation – high, moderate and lower.3 In the present case the Judge considered the aggravating features of the use of the extension cord as a weapon, the prolonged strangulation of approximately 30 seconds, the victim’s vulnerability in that the strangulation took place after the parties had had sex, she was considerably younger than him, and she was effectively caught by surprise, and Mr Watson was sitting on her chest, the premeditation demonstrated by the use of the extension cord and the ultimate significant harm to the victim placed the offending at the upper end of the moderately serious category for the purposes of Shramka v R. In the Judge’s view those features supported the start point of three years, four months in prison.
[9] While accepting there was no dispute that there were a number of aggravating factors present in the offending, namely the victim’s vulnerability, breach of trust, aggravated violence and use of the extension cord, and that the offending fell within the moderately serious category of Shramka, Mr Taumihau submitted it was somewhat of a misnomer to refer to the extension cord as a weapon as such. He noted that normally an aggravating feature of the use of a weapon would justify an increase
2 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279.
3 Shramka v R [2022] NZCA 299.
because of the additional risk of harm that could be inflicted but in the present case the extension cord was simply the mechanism of strangulation as opposed to the use of the appellant’s hands. He noted there was no reference to the victim obtaining or sustaining significant injuries through the use of the extension cord other than the marks to her neck. To that extent he submitted the extension cord was really no more, as I say, than the mechanism commonly used, namely hands. He noted that by reference to Shramka, and the Court of Appeal’s discussion of the facts of that case that in the present case there was no breach of a protection order and the summary of facts did not suggest that the victim lost consciousness. Mr Taumihau also relied on the cases of Hugenholtz v Police, Edwards v Police and Mihinui v Police4 to support his submission that a starting point as low as 30 months’ imprisonment could have been imposed but certainly no more than three years was appropriate. He submitted that the use of the extension cord was broadly similar to the use of the t-shirt in Hugenholtz v Police, a mechanism which was used to inhibit breathing but did not aggravate the harm to the victim. However, as discussed during the course of the hearing and accepted by Mr Taumihau, it does appear that in Hugenholtz Peters J took a starting point of three years, three months for the first incidence of strangulation using the t-shirt in that case.
Discounts
[10] As to the discounts, Mr Taumihau submitted that recently the Court of Appeal had confirmed in Dickey v R that youth discounts remain valid.5 He submitted a discount greater than five per cent was appropriate and suggested that up to as much as 15 per cent could be applied in this case by reference to the ADHD suffered by Mr Watson.
[11] If the submissions were accepted the end sentence would be reduced by eight to nine months’ imprisonment which would be approximately 20 per cent which would be a significant adjustment to the sentence. I agree with the maths that Mr Taumihau promoted and that a reduction of 20 per cent could not be regarded as tinkering.
4 Hugenholtz v Police [2020] NZHC 659; Edwards v Police [2023] NZHC 2825; and Mihinui v Police [2018] NZHC 2705.
5 Dickey v R [2023] NZCA 2.
Discussion
[12] In Hugenholtz v Police there were two instances of strangulation.6 As clarified Peters J upheld a starting point of three years, three months for the first incident involving the t-shirt. In Hugenholtz I note that the victim had difficulty in breathing in part because not only of the use of the t-shirt but also her nose was blocked from persistent crying from earlier incidents, rather than necessarily a consequence of Mr Hugenholtz’s strangulation. In the present case the victim was unable to breathe for approximately 30 seconds due to the pressure applied by Mr Watson with the extension cord.
[13] Despite Mr Taumihau’s full submissions on behalf of Mr Watson I consider the use of the extension cord to be a particularly aggravating factor. I accept that it is probably not entirely correct to describe the use of it as premeditated. The summary of facts suggest it was simply use of an extension cord which was to hand but the important point is that the extension cord facilitated the act of strangulation and the potential effect.
[14] I do not consider Edwards v Police assists the appellant.7 Unlike Edwards in the present case the victim was vulnerable and effectively caught by surprise in the circumstances leading up to the strangulation. I also agree with counsel for the respondent’s submission that Mihinui v Police is of limited assistance as it involved a charge of injuring with intent which carries a lower maximum penalty.8 When considering sentencing for strangulation the Court should bear in mind the intent of Parliament which is reflected in the reports prior to the passing of the legislation and the imposition of a maximum sentence of seven years for such offending.
[15] Having regard to the aggravating features of the present case, which I consider were identified correctly by the Judge with perhaps the exception of the reference to premeditation, the starting point was within the range available to him having regard to the discussion of the aggravating features in in Shramka v R.9 While in Shramka
6 Hugenholtz v Police, above n 4.
7 Edwards v Police, above n 4.
8 Mihinui v Police, above n 4.
9 Shramka v R, above n 3.
the Court took a starting point of three years I consider the use of the cord in the present case to be a particularly sinister feature of the offending and warranting the starting point of three years, four months.
[16] Further, the uplift of 16 months for the other offending, having regard to totality, was well within range. As the Judge noted, before deducting for totality, the additional offending would on its own have justified an additional end sentence in excess of 30 months.
[17] That leaves the issue of the discount. As noted, no quarrel is taken with the 15 per cent for the guilty plea. Mr Taumihau’s sole point for Mr Watson was that the five per cent or three months for youth was insufficient and it could have been 15 per cent or as much as eight months or so. There was also the reference to Mr Watson suffering from ADHD. However, while Mr Taumihau referred to and apparently relied upon a report of a communication assistant there appears to have been no formal record of that and no evidence of any link between the ADHD and the index offending.
[18] As to the discount for youth, as the Judge correctly observed, Mr Watson’s offending was hardly spontaneous offending driven by or contributed to by youth or inhibition. The offending took place over an extended number of days and involved a limited degree of planning and use of weapons. Further, as in the case of Sasulu v Police,10 it is relevant that Mr Watson had previous offending for violence, including threatening to kill and assaults. Finally I note Mr Watson was near the upper end of age at which recognition for youth would be appropriate. I consider the three months allowed by the Judge to have been appropriate.
[19] In the circumstances it is unnecessary to take into account the further point made by Ms Puertollano for the Crown, namely that at the time of the offending Mr Watson was actually on bail and subject to release conditions which could in itself have justified a further uplift.
[20] Standing back and looking at the end sentence imposed in this case I consider it was well open to the Judge.
10 Sasulu v Police [2024] NZHC 1470.
Result
[21]Leave is granted to appeal out of time.
[22]The appeal is dismissed.
Venning J
0
7
0