Watts v The King - [2023] NZHC 2704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-55

CRI-2023-409-56 [2023] NZHC 2704

BETWEEN
NICHOLA SARA WATTS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 5 October 2023

Appearances:

Appellant in person

G E R Alloway for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 October 2023 at 1.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

WATTS v R [2023] NZHC 2704 [13 October 2023]

Introduction

[1] Nichola Watts was sentenced on 21 June 2022 in the District Court to three years four months’ imprisonment and an order for reparation.1 This followed her entering guilty pleas to the following charges on the dates provided:

(a)making a false statement (07/10/2020);

(b)careless driving causing injury (12/10/2020);

(c)making a false statement (27/01/2021);

(d)two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice (27/04/2021);

(e)contravening a protection order (27/04/2021);

(f)two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice (08/04/2022); and

(g)contravening a protection order (08/04/2022).

[2] She now appeals all convictions. Although the appeal was also filed as an appeal against sentence, Ms Watts clarified at the hearing she was only suggesting the sentence should change as a consequence of the convictions being set aside.

Facts of the offending

[3] Ms Watts and the victim met through an online dating platform in January 2019. Their casual relationship was ended by the victim in October 2019. Ms Watts told the victim she was pregnant with his child; this was untrue.

[4] On 25 November 2019, Ms Watts made a formal complaint of assault to the Police. Her statement said the victim had assaulted her, her doctor had viewed the bruises, she was sick due to pregnancy, and she had dropped a scan photograph of the

1 R v Watts [2022] NZDC 11504.

unborn child into the victim’s letterbox. However, she said she did not want to take the matter further, though complained the victim was harassing her.

[5] On 9 July 2020, Ms Watts used false statements and modified documents to apply for and obtain a protection order against the victim. As part of her application for a temporary protection order, she produced a birth certificate purportedly for a child born April 2020. An enquiry revealed the certificate related to a child born in 2003.

[6] Around 55 more claims were made by Ms Watts to the Police of harassment by the victim. In addition, she told the Police she had given birth as well as providing an elaborate story that she had immediately fostered the child out to a Mr and Mrs Smith. She also forged a letter, purportedly signed by the Smiths, to that effect. To support the harassment claims, Ms Watts created nine email addresses and several Snapchat accounts using variations of the victim’s and the victim’s ex-wife’s names to fabricate ‘evidence’. She went so far as to send emails from those fake accounts to her then 10-year-old…

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 Watts v The King

Details

AGLC: Watts v The King [2023] NZHC 2704
Case: [2023] NZHC 2704
Decision Date: 13 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Watts v The King involves an appeal by Nichola Watts against her convictions and sentences imposed by the District Court. Watts was found guilty of making false statements, careless driving causing injury, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and contravening a protection order. Watts’ appeal against her convictions is based on the argument that she entered guilty pleas to avoid harassment by the victims, and that she had alibis for many of the charges. The central legal issue was whether Watts' appeal against her convictions should be allowed, particularly given her entry of guilty pleas. The Court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting an appeal against conviction following a guilty plea. The Court held that Watts' appeal had no prospect of success as she failed to demonstrate any substantial ground for appeal, such as a misunderstanding of the charges or wrongful legal advice. Watts' claims of having alibis for almost all charges and entering pleas to stop harassment were deemed implausible and unsupported by evidence. The Court refused leave to appeal out of time, concluding that the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice. The Court emphasized the importance of the finality of decisions and the exceptional nature of allowing appeals against convictions after guilty pleas.

Orders