Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Saltmarsh

DPP v Saltmarsh

Case [2013] VSCA 290 18 October 2013

Appeal

Sentence

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0097

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
	v
DARREN WAYNE SALTMARSH	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	8 October 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 October 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 290
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Saltmarsh [2013] VSC 204 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Kidnapping, attempted murder, false imprisonment, robbery, theft and extortion with threat to kill – Sentence of 9 years 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 years – Convicted after trial on kidnapping and attempted murder charges – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Whether relevant that offending characterised as ‘bizarre’ – Appeal allowed – Respondent resentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 9 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J R Champion SC with Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P F Tehan QC with Ms C A Boston	C D Traill Lawyers

MAXWELL P
PRIEST JA
COGHLAN JA:

Introduction

At about 9.35am on 20 October 2011, the respondent started digging a grave in the backyard of premises he was occupying in Pakenham. He stopped digging at 10.54am. Shortly afterwards, he took GA — a young woman whom he had kidnapped for ransom on 18 October 2011 — from inside the house to the gravesite. GA had a beanie over her head (which the respondent had put there to serve as a blindfold), and her hands were tied in front of her. The respondent pushed GA into the grave. She was seconds away from being murdered by the respondent when police, who had been observing these events from a concealed vantage point, entered the yard with guns drawn, rescued GA (whom they observed to be kneeling in the grave) and arrested the respondent. The respondent’s conduct was, on the hearing of this appeal, aptly described as chilling.

Following his arrest, the respondent was charged with a number of offences. Eventually, an indictment was filed in the Supreme Court containing counts of kidnapping[1] (charge 1); false imprisonment[2] (charge 2); making a threat to kill[3] (charge 3); robbery[4] (charge 4); theft[5] (charge 5); extortion with threat to kill[6] (charge 6); and attempted murder[7] (charge 7).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 63A. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[2]A common law offence, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 320.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 20. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Ibid s 75. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[5]Ibid s 74. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[6]Ibid s 27. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[7]An offence pursuant to common law and Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 321M, for which the maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 321P.

The respondent pleaded guilty to charges…

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 DPP v Saltmarsh

Details

AGLC: DPP v Saltmarsh [2013] VSCA 290
Case: [2013] VSCA 290
Decision Date: 18 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, appealed against the sentence given to the respondent, Saltmarsh, by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Saltmarsh was convicted of multiple serious offences including kidnapping, attempted murder, false imprisonment, robbery, theft, and extortion with a threat to kill. The trial judge sentenced Saltmarsh to nine and a half years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years, a sentence the Crown deemed manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the crimes committed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Saltmarsh was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, and that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the impact on the victims. The Crown also submitted that the trial judge had given undue weight to the "bizarre" nature of the offending, and that this had led to an underestimation of the appropriate punishment. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the unique circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had not sufficiently considered the severity of the offences and the impact on the victims. The court held that the "bizarre" nature of the offending did not diminish the culpability of the respondent, and that it was a relevant factor only to the extent that it informed the appropriate level of punishment. The court allowed the appeal and resentenced Saltmarsh to 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine years. This sentence was deemed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and to provide sufficient deterrence and denunciation.

Orders