R v Salt

Case [2022] NZHC 3007 17 November 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-008962

[2022] NZHC 3007

THE QUEEN

v

HESTON SALT

Hearing: 17 November 2022

Appearances:

S S McMullan for Crown E P Priest for Defendant

Judgment:

17 November 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: E Priest, Auckland

R v SALT [2022] NZHC 3007 [17 November 2022]

[1] Heston Salt, you are for sentence this morning having pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum sentence for each offence is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] On 29 February 2020 at around 7.35 am you and three unknown associates drove to a property in Mt Roskill. Earlier that morning you had effectively been summoned to meet in response to a text from an unknown number which read “Who is available URGENT!!!” which you had received at about 6.06 am. You left a gang pad in Brentwood Avenue, Mt Eden at 6.13 am in response to that text and went to the Wesley Community Centre in Mt Roskill. Between 6.30 and 7.30 am, you and your associates drove past the victim’s address on a number of occasions carrying out reconnaissance. At 7.35 am the four of you drove in your SUV and parked outside the address. You and two others exited the car. The two offenders that you accompanied into the house were armed with a 12-gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle. At 7.36 am the three of you entered the address through the laundry door. The remaining offender, the driver, stayed in the car.

[3] The address you went to was the home of the Eliu family. Mr and Mrs Eliu lived there with two of their daughters. Their daughters’ partners, Mr Finau and Mr Vea and their children also lived at the address. All of the family, apart from Mr Vea’s partner and two of her children, were home at the time. Mr Finau and his partner’s bedroom opened into a hallway opposite the laundry. Mr Finau and his partner were in their bedroom. Mr Finau saw you and your associates enter the laundry. He told his partner to hide herself in the cupboard of their bedroom. The offender with the .22 firearm shot Mr Finau. The bullet penetrated his right eye and lodged in his brain. A second shot was fired which lodged in the door jamb of Mr Finau’s room. Mr and Mrs Eliu’s bedroom was next to Mr Finau and his partner’s bedroom. On hearing the first shot Mr Eliu turned to see the gunmen in the hallway and yelled at them. As he came out of his room the offender with the .22 firearm shot Mr Eliu through his right collar bone. Mr Vea and his partner’s room was on the other side of Mr Eliu’s bedroom. Mr Vea was in there at the time with his young daughter. After hearing the shots he came out of the…

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 [2022] NZHC 3007
Case: [2022] NZHC 3007
Decision Date: 17 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Heston Salt was sentenced for three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with each offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The incident occurred on 29 February 2020, when Salt and his associates targeted the Eliu family home in Mt Roskill, Auckland. Salt and two others entered the house armed with a shotgun and a.22 rifle, shooting three family members: Mr Finau, Mr Eliu, and Mr Vea. The injuries sustained were severe, with Mr Finau suffering permanent vision loss in his right eye, Mr Eliu sustaining a gunshot wound above the clavicle, and Mr Vea being shot in the left bicep with multiple pellet wounds. The legal issues in the case involved determining the appropriate starting point for Salt's sentence, considering the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, and assessing mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court considered the gravity of the offending, the degree of Salt's culpability, and the need for denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. It was noted that the use of firearms in the community was a growing concern. The Crown argued for a starting point of around 11 to 12 years' imprisonment, considering the extreme violence, the use of lethal weapons, the level of injury to the victims, and the presence of multiple attackers. On the other hand, Salt's counsel argued for a starting point of seven to eight years, considering that Salt was not the principal offender and drawing comparisons to previous cases with lower starting points. The court found that while Salt was not the shooter, his involvement in the planned home invasion and the serious nature of the injuries inflicted warranted a higher starting point. The court decided on an 11-year starting point, uplifted by six months due to Salt's earlier parole violation, and applied a 27.5% reduction for his guilty plea and background factors, resulting in an eight-year, four-month sentence.

The final orders of the court were that Heston Salt is sentenced to eight years, four months' imprisonment on each of the three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with the sentences to run concurrently. No minimum non-parole period was imposed to allow Salt an opportunity to demonstrate genuine rehabilitation efforts.

Orders