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, and at one point you gave Mr Matagi your phone number which he entered onto his phone. However, at about 10:55 pm your body language shows that you had become angry at Mr Matagi. You walked close to him as he was preparing to throw his darts, and spoke intently into his face.

[9]                 Mr Matagi does not appear to respond in any physical way. He just prepared to throw his dart. As he did that, you stepped behind him, and to his side. Then, as Mr Matagi was about to throw the dart, you hit him hard to the side of his face. The force of your punch knocked him to the floor.

[10]              You then soccer kicked him in the face, with significant force. Mr Matagi tried to protect his head with his arms. But you stood over him and you stomped on his head four times, until he was unconscious. The whole episode appears to have taken about 12 seconds.

[11]              You then proceeded to rummage through Mr Matagi’s pockets. You took his cell phone, his passport and his wallet which contained various cards including a visa debit card. You tried unsuccessfully to roll him on to his side. You then left the room, returning to the smokers’ area leaving Mr Matagi lying on the ground, unconscious.

[12]              You removed various items from Mr Matagi’s wallet, including bank cards, and gave them to your associates. You handed Mr Matagi’s wallet and passport to one of your associates who returned them to Mr Matagi in his cap. He was still lying on the ground unresponsive.

[13]              One of your associates used Mr Matagi’s debit card to buy drinks and she used it elsewhere later on. She was charged with theft, and I understand pleaded guilty. You have not been charged with theft, but one of the bases on which you were charged

with murdering Mr Matagi was that you intentionally caused him grievous bodily harm for the purpose of committing an aggravated robbery. I’ll discuss that in a bit more detail shortly.

[14]              For about an hour and 20 minutes after you assaulted Mr Matagi he was left lying unconscious on the ground. You and your associates checked on him a couple of times. You said that you heard him breathing and that is consistent with the expert evidence.1 But at that time no one called him an ambulance. And, of course, you were the only one who was aware of the extent of your violence, and the likely injuries to Mr Matagi. Eventually, Mr Matagi’s friends came looking for him and found him lying unconscious. Various people asked the bar man to call paramedics, which he did. And you appear to have been part of that request.  They carried out CPR, but  Mr Matagi was later declared dead. The cause of his death was the blunt force trauma to his head that you had inflicted.

Victim Impact Statements

[15]              I have received four victim impact statements, all of which you have heard read out here in open Court this morning. These are from Mr Matagi’s father, his mother, one of his brothers and one of his sisters.

[16]              Mr Matagi was the fifth of his parents’ six children. As you heard, he was named after the village in Niue where he was born and where his parents were ministering to the community there. Like others in his family, Mr Matagi was a talented musician. The family had plans to professionally record some of their original songs with him but they won’t get to do that, but they are grateful for the recordings they have.

[17]              What each have said about their son and their brother was as moving as it is deeply sad. They speak of Mr Matagi as a loving, generous and humble young man, committed to his family and to his wider community. Others have spoken of

1      Dr Kesha’s evidence was that victims of fatal head injuries can start reflexive “agonal breathing’ in the period before they die.

Mr Matagi’s positive energy and his ability to bring people together. The family say that the impact of Mr Matagi’s death is immeasurable, and their grief is overwhelming.

[18]              I am struck by their grace. They say that they pray for you, Mr Salt, and for your children. Mr Matagi’s father and brother say that, at that end of the day, they forgive you.

Approach to sentencing

[19]I am going to talk now about the approach to sentencing.

[20]              Everyone who commits murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment, unless that sentence would be manifestly unjust, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender.2 Mr Salt, your lawyers and the Crown agree that there are no circumstances in this case that make a life sentence manifestly unjust. I must sentence you to life imprisonment.

[21]              But that is not the end of the sentencing exercise. The real issue in this case is the length of the minimum period of imprisonment that I must impose in addition to life imprisonment. That is the period of imprisonment that you must serve before you become eligible to apply for parole. I’ll refer to that minimum period of imprisonment as an MPI.

[22]              Mr Salt, you have been very well advised throughout and I am sure you know this. but I need to make it clear for everybody in the Court and those who will be interested. I’m emphasising that the MPI is not your sentence. Your sentence is life imprisonment. There can be some confusion about that, but there should not be.

[23]              The MPI is not the sentence that you are required to serve before you are released from prison. It is the period that you must serve before you are even eligible to apply for parole.3 At that point it will be for the Parole Board to decide whether, when and even if you should be granted parole.4 It will be up to the Parole Board to

2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

3      Parole Act 2002, s 84(3).

4      Parole Act, s 109(1).

determine whether you have been sufficiently rehabilitated, and your release is justified. The Parole Board’s paramount consideration in deciding whether an offender should be released is the safety of the community.5 And even if you are released on parole, you will be subject to recall to prison at any time for the rest of your life if it is believed that you have since become a threat to the community.6

[24]              Now, section 103 of the Sentencing Act tells me that if a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, the Court must impose an MPI of not less than 10 years.7 It also requires that the MPI must be what the Court considers necessary to hold an offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and to the community; to denounce the conduct in which the offender was involved; to deter the offender and others from committing the same or similar offences; and to protect the community from the offender.

[25]              However, if the murder involves one or more of the aggravating factors listed in s 104 of the Act, then the Court must impose an MPI of at least 17 years, unless it is manifestly unjust to do so.8 Let me try and express that simply. All murders are terribly bad, with tragic consequences. But in the Sentencing Act the law recognises that some murders are especially bad, and worse than others. That perhaps is a difficult concept, and one of the most difficult decisions this Court ever has to make is to decide which murders fall into that category and which murders don’t.

[26]              The Crown says that one of the aggravating factors does apply here. It says that in this case you murdered Mr Matagi in the course of committing another serious offence: in the course of robbing him. The Crown submits that an MPI of 17 years applies. Ms Priest disagrees. She says the murder did not occur in the course of you committing another serious offence. She says that in all the circumstances, including your personal circumstances, an MPI of 10 years is appropriate.

[27]              So, this means there are three questions that I must answer to decide what MPI you must serve:

5      Parole Act, s 7(1).

6      Parole Act, s 61(2).

7      Sentencing Act, s 103(2).

8      Sentencing Act, s 104(1).

(a)First, do any of the aggravating features listed in s 104 of the Sentencing Act apply?

(b)Secondly, what MPI would be appropriate but for s 104?

(c)Thirdly, if s 104 does apply, would an MPI of 17 years be manifestly unjust.

[28]And so, I turn now to consider the first these questions.

Is s 104(1)(d) triggered?

[29]              As you have heard Mr Salt the Crown submits that you murdered Mr Matagi in the course of robbing him, and that, as such, s 104 applies and the MPI should be at least 17 years.

[30]              Mr Nathan points out that the CCTV footage shows Mr Matagi pulled out his wallet to pay for the game of pool or darts. He says that it shows that after you knocked Mr Matagi to the ground and rendered him unconscious you went through his pockets taking his phone, wallet and passport. As I have said you took those back to your associates in the smokers’ area and you distributed the cards to them. Mr Nathan says to me that you saw Mr Matagi pull out his wallet and you knew he had paid for drinks, so you knew he had money. Mr Nathan submits that the evidence shows you had formed the intention to rob Mr Matagi by no later than the time when you carried out the final stomp to his head.

[31]              However, I am unable to infer beyond reasonable doubt that you carried out your attack on Mr Matagi for the purpose of robbing him. I can’t be sure. As I said, you were getting on well initially, and you gave Mr Matagi your phone number. However, your body language in the 15 or so seconds before the attack indicates that you became aggressive, confronting Mr Matagi as he is about to throw his dart.

[32]              All in all, I consider the evidence shows that your attack on Mr Matagi was over before you went through his pockets and robbed him. I accept Ms Priest’s submission on your behalf that there is insufficient evidence for me to be sure that you

intended to rob Mr Matagi before you finished attacking him. Instead, the evidence is also consistent with an opportunistic robbery, after the attack. I cannot be sure that the robbery was a prior event during the course of which Mr Matagi was murdered and for that reason I do not accept that s 104(1)(d) applies.9

What MPI is appropriate under s 103?

[33]              I turn now to consider what the appropriate MPI for your offending should be under s 103. This involves setting a starting point MPI before considering what adjustments, if any, need to be made to take into account your personal circumstances. The Court will also consider comparable cases and what MPI was imposed in those.

What is the appropriate starting point?

[34]              I have heard and read the submissions from Mr Nathan and Ms Priest. I consider the following aggravating factors are present in your murder of Mr Matagi:

(a)You used significant violence against him, including attacking him to the head. You did that in circumstances where I consider he was vulnerable. You hit him from behind, and you kicked and stomped his head while he was on the ground. You were clearly intent on assaulting Mr Matagi until he was unconscious.

(b)I record here that I do not consider you were acting in self-defence. There is no corroborating evidence to  support  your  evidence  that Mr Matagi told you he had a gun and was going to shoot you. Any conversation along those lines is, in my view, inconsistent with the body language on the CCTV footage. Which I consider shows clearly that you were the aggressor. In any event, on any analysis, your attack on Mr Matagi was entirely unreasonable.

(c)Your actions show a degree of callousness. Mr Matagi was unconscious on the ground for well over an hour before anybody took steps to call an ambulance. Ms Priest points out that you did not flee,

9      R v Slade [2005] 2 NZLR 526, (2005) 21 CRNZ 600 (CA) at [39].

and joined those who later asked the bar man to call an ambulance. But as I have said, although you may have joined in on that request, only you knew the extent of  your  violence  and  likely  the  injuries  to  Mr Matagi.

(d)Finally, I record, and it will be clear to anybody who has been in the courtroom today that your offending as had a devastating impact on Mr Matagi’s family and their wider community.

[35]              The Crown and Ms Priest have provided me with a large number of cases which they say help inform what MPI should be adopted under s 103.

[36]              In light of these, Mr Nathan says that an overall MPI of at least 15 years, taking account of your personal circumstances, would be appropriate. Ms Priest submits that a starting point of 11 years is appropriate.

[37]              Taking into account all of these factors, and the authorities to which I have been referred, I consider the appropriate starting point for the minimum term for imprisonment is 12.5 years. As I said earlier, I will footnote in my written decision a greater explanation of my analysis on that.10

Personal circumstances

[38]              I turn now to consider what adjustments should be made to that MPI. While the seriousness of your offending must be my particular focus in setting an MPI for

10 Mr Nathan referred to R v Knight [2012] NZHC 2866 and R v Berry (HC Auckland, CRI-2010- 092-2165, 7 December 2010) in which MPI starting points of 15 years and 13 years were adopted. Mr Nathan submitted that Mr Salt’s offending was very similar to R v Knight, and shares similarities with R v Berry. Ms Priest referred me to a number of other cases which she submits are comparable and in which MPI starting points of between 10-12 years imprisonment were adopted: R v Rangiwhaiao [2012] NZHC 1751; R v Sullivan HC Wellington, CRI-2009-485-86, 10 February 2010; R v Shaheem [2019] NZHC 1200; R v Solomon [2017] NZHC 3057; R v Aiono [2012] NZHC 1752; and R v Ranapia HC Whangarei, CRI-2008-088-4443, 23 October 2009. The cases to which I have been referred are all different in various ways, and the reasons for the different outcomes are not always apparent. However, comparisons with other cases serves as something of a cross-check. Taking into account the relevant aggravating factors, I consider the cases most similar are R v Berry, in which the victim was kicked and stomped in the head four times and left unconscious; and R v Shaheem, in which Mr Shaheem kicked and stomped the deceased’s head and body. I note that in R v Berry the victim was more vulnerable; although in  R v Shaheem there was more than one attacker and the defendant fled.

murder,11 adjustments may nevertheless be made on account of your personal circumstances. That just means that your mitigating factors play a lesser role than they otherwise would if I was sentencing you for an offence other than murder. Ms Priest says that there are two factors to take into account. She refers to causative contributions to your offending flowing from your background, and remorse.

[39]              I turn to those features of your background, bringing in what happened before your offending which might help explain why you offended as you did. And on that, I have received two reports. A pre-sentence report and a psychologist’s report. While most of the information contained in these reports is self-reported, it is to some extent verified by discussions with your partner and some of the conclusions of the psychologist.

PAC report/Personal factors

[40]              You are the second of five siblings, and you grew up with both parents in Auckland. You left school at 14 or 15, and advised that you ended up boys’ homes around the North Island.

[41]              Your criminal history records that you first came before the Court in 2004, when you were 15 years old. You have 44 District Court convictions accrued between 2006 and 2022. Some of these are for driving offences, assault, contravening protection orders, possession of cannabis and cocaine, wilful damage and family violence. Importantly, as Ms Priest points out, you have never previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

[42]              You have a partner and two teenage children. You separated from your partner in 2020, but you report that she visits you weekly with your children and that you are on good terms. As I have said, she seems to have a view that is consistent with that.

[43]              The author of the pre-sentence report concludes that there is “a pattern indicative of a lack of consequential thinking and dysfunctional conflict resolution skill”. An earlier PAC report notes that your previous assault convictions are

11     Webber v R [2021] NZCA 133 at [33].

indicative of poor communication and relationship skills and offending supportive attitude. This is reported to lead to a disregard for your victims and a failure to consider the consequences of your often threatening or violent behaviour. And that is, of course, what has played out here, and what has brought you here.

[44]              Alcohol and drug use are reported to have contributed to your offending. Your alcohol use is described as problematic.

Psychologist’s report

[45]              I also have a more recent psychologist’s assessment report. You told the psychologist that while you were in state care you suffered abuse of various sorts. You had not previously disclosed that abuse. You have also reported suffering from several head injuries. You say that you received physical punishment from your parents but did not consider that to be excessive. You say you were exposed to violence when other family members came to visit.

[46]              You clearly have a long history of drug abuse. You started consuming cannabis when you were 10 which escalated to include methamphetamine by the time you were

26. At the time of your offending, you were drinking heavily, using methamphetamine daily, and selling drugs to fund your substance addictions. Your drug and alcohol abuse have had highly detrimental effects on your personal relationships including with your partner and your children.

[47]              The psychologist concludes, based on what you told her, that the level of violence in your offending appears to have been reactive and followed heightened emotional arousal and paranoia. The psychologist concludes that your offending was precipitated by your intoxication with methamphetamine; your lack of insight into your triggers for violence; emotional dysregulation; increased impulsivity (probably due to drug intoxication); anti-social belief system; unstable lifestyle; anti-social associates; and your poor ability to cope with life stresses.

[48]              In terms of your mental health, the psychologist’s assessment based on your self-reports is that you likely meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Your responses to psychological testing suggests you have a strong tendency

to avoid thinking about the abuse that you suffered as a child, and that you use drugs to manage these intrusive thoughts. She also concludes you likely meet the diagnostic criteria for stimulant use disorder – methamphetamine.

Remorse

[49]              Ms Priest also says to me that you are remorseful. I have seen your letter today. Ms Priest emphasises that you have always taken responsibility for causing the fatal injuries but deny any murderous intent. It would have been difficult, of course, not to have taken responsibility for those injuries given what could clearly be seen on the CCTV footage.

[50]              The psychologist also reports that you have expressed regret and remorse for your actions. However, in all the circumstances, I do not consider that a discrete reduction is appropriate for remorse. As I have said, you have accepted responsibility for causing the death, but it was very difficult for you in the circumstances not to do that.

[51]              I do agree with Ms Priest though that there is perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel. You have used your time in prison well, you have told me that you will continue to do that. You told the psychologist that you have great concern to ensure that you have good relationships with your children. I do encourage you to take all of the opportunities that are available to you in prison, Mr Salt, which will obviously enhance your prospects of parole when the time comes.

[52]              Taking these factors into account, and while appropriately acknowledging that the seriousness of your offending must be my focus, I consider that a discrete reduction of six months is warranted.

Sentence

[53]Mr Salt, would you please stand.

[54]              On the charge of murder, you are sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 12 years.

[55]Please stand down.

Robinson J