R v Salt - [2017] NZHC 1979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-090-003949 [2017] NZHC 1979

THE QUEEN

v

HESTON SALT

Hearing: 18 August 2017

Appearances:

H Steele for the Crown
M Ryan for Defendant

Sentence:

18 August 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Auckland
M Ryan, Auckland

R v SALT [2017] NZHC 1979 [18 August 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Salt, you may remain seated until I ask you to stand.

[2] You appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping pursuant to s 209(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, and to one charge of blackmail, pursuant to ss 237(1) and 238 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for each offence is the same – namely 14 years’ imprisonment.

[3] You have already received a three strikes warning when the convictions were entered.

Relevant facts

[4] You are a member of a street-based gang known as DMS – or “Dope, Money, Sex”.

[5] In the 12 months prior to June 2016, you had supplied methamphetamine to the first complainant – A. Over that period, A accumulated a drug debt of some
$10,000 which was owed either to you or to the DMS gang. He subsequently made a payment of $5,000, leaving a debt of $5,000 outstanding.

[6] In June 2016, members of the DMS gang started making threats to A by sending text messages to his mobile phone. Gang members threatened to hurt people A knew if the drug debt was not repaid in full. Further, A was told by DMS members that he owed another $12,000, making the total debt one of $17,000.

[7] Fearing for their safety, A and his son D went into hiding. Members of DMS found out about this and they then conducted enquiries with A and D’s associates to ascertain their whereabouts.

[8] You and your brother, Tremayne, formed the common intention to recover the debt from A. Your plan was to locate and kidnap D and hold him for ransom, until A repaid the $17,000 you alleged was owing.

[9] At 10.30pm on Saturday 10 July 2016, A and D were at their home address in West Auckland. Various members of the DMS gang, including you and your brother, travelled to the address. You were in a separate car from your brother. He was armed with a pistol.

[10] You parked your car a short distance away. Your brother drove up to the house and parked outside it.

[11] As a ruse to get D to come out of the house, your brother instructed another person present to send D a text asking him to come outside for a smoke. D did come outside. He walked up to the car your brother was in. When D reached the car, your brother pointed the pistol at him, and instructed him to get into the car. Fearing for his life, D got into the rear passenger seat. The vehicle was then driven the short distance up the street to your…

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 [2017] NZHC 1979
Case: [2017] NZHC 1979
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Salt was heard and determined on 18 August 2017. Heston Salt, a member of the DMS gang, pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and blackmail. The legal issues included determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing and deciding on the appropriate discounts for his guilty pleas, remorse, and participation in a restorative justice conference. The court considered the gravity of the offending, the significant degree of planning and premeditation, the violence threatened and the use of a firearm, and the extent of harm suffered by the victim. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined an appropriate starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment. The final sentence imposed was three years and three months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently for both charges.

The key legal issues in this case were the determination of the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the appropriate discounts to be applied. The court considered various aggravating factors, such as the degree of planning and premeditation, the violence threatened, and the use of a firearm. There were no mitigating factors presented. The court also considered the personal factors of the offender, including his previous criminal history, remorse, and his guilty pleas. The court ultimately decided on a starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment, with appropriate discounts for remorse, guilty pleas, and participation in a restorative justice conference. The final sentence imposed was three years and three months' imprisonment for both charges, to be served concurrently.

Orders