R v Salt - [2025] NZHC 825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-6905

[2025] NZHC 825

THE KING

v

CHRISTOPHER TEAN SALT

Hearing: 19 March 2025

Appearances:

M Nathan and T A Veikune for the Crown E Priest and P Wilks for the Defendant

Date:

19 March 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF ROBINSON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
MC, Auckland
E Priest, Auckland | P Wilks, Auckland

R v SALT [2025] NZHC 825 [19 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] Christopher Tean Salt, you appear today for sentence after a jury found you guilty of the murder of Tofimua Matagi.

[2] Before I go any further I want to acknowledge Mr Matagi’s whanau, friends and supporters. I welcome you to the High Court. I will have something more to say shortly about the hole that Mr Matagi’s death has left in so many lives. For now, I especially thank those who provided the Court with victim impact statements and I acknowledge the courage it must have taken for you to prepare those, the dignity of the tributes you have made to your son and to your brother, and for telling the Court about how his death has affected you. As I say, I shall have more to say about those shortly, too.

[3] I also acknowledge and welcome those of you who are here to support Mr Salt. It is a sad and stressful day for everybody.

[4] I am going to try to keep these sentencing remarks as brief and as simple as I can. It is important for everybody here to understand how I have made the decisions that I have. But sentencing can be quite a technical process. Where I can, I will footnote in my written decision some of the more technical aspects of the analysis of the caselaw and the legal arguments that the lawyers have made in their written and their oral submissions to the Court.

The Offending

[5] On the evening of Thursday, 31 August 2023, Mr Salt, you were at Richardson’s Restaurant and Bar with friends. You and your friends were regular patrons there. During the evening, Mr Matagi arrived with work mates. It was the first time he had been to that bar.

[6] You and Mr Matagi met and engaged for a period of time with others in the outdoor smoking area. All of this was recorded on CCTV. There did not appear to be any animosity between you and Mr Matagi. People were laughing. It appears that Mr Matagi purchased a round of drinks.

[7] At around 10:30 pm you and Mr Matagi entered the games room to play pool, but the pool table was broken so you played darts. Your interaction in the games room was also filmed on CCTV. Mr Matagi pulled out his wallet and appears to have been offering to pay for the pool or the darts game.

[8] The CCTV footage shows that initially you were both getting on just fine. There was laughter,…

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 R v Salt

Details

AGLC: R v Salt [2025] NZHC 825
Case: [2025] NZHC 825
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case of R v Salt, where the defendant, Christopher Tean Salt, was convicted of the murder of Tofimua Matagi. The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that Salt must serve before becoming eligible for parole. The Crown argued for an MPI of 17 years due to the aggravating factor of the murder occurring during the course of a robbery, while the defense argued for a 10-year MPI, citing Salt's personal circumstances and lack of intent to rob before the attack. Justice Robinson concluded that while the murder involved significant violence and had a devastating impact on the victim's family, there was insufficient evidence to infer beyond reasonable doubt that Salt intended to rob Matagi before the attack was complete. Therefore, Justice Robinson did not find the aggravating factor applicable. After considering the aggravating factors of the offence, comparable cases, and Salt's personal circumstances, Justice Robinson set the starting point for the MPI at 12.5 years and applied a six-month reduction for mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of life imprisonment with a 12-year MPI.

Orders