Watson v The King - [2025] NZHC 2519

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…

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] NZHC 2519
Case: [2025] NZHC 2519
Decision Date: 1 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eugene Watson appeals against his sentence for strangulation, assault with a weapon, and other charges. The District Court Judge sentenced Watson to three years and five months' imprisonment, which Watson argues is manifestly excessive. The appeal was lodged out of time, but the Crown does not oppose leave being granted. The court must allow the appeal if it finds any error in the sentence warranting a different sentence, but otherwise, it must dismiss the appeal.

The court considered the starting point for the strangulation charge, which the District Court Judge set at three years and four months. The court found that the use of an extension cord as a weapon and other aggravating factors justified this starting point. The court also considered the discounts for a guilty plea and youth, finding the three-month discount for youth appropriate given Watson's prior convictions for violence and the nature of his offending. The court found no basis to increase the discount for youth or to reduce the sentence further.

The court concluded that the District Court Judge correctly applied the principles of sentencing and found no error warranting a different sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal out of time was granted.

Orders