R v Salt - [2017] NZHC 1467

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE SENTENCE AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL OF CO-ACCUSED. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-090-3949 [2017] NZHC 1467

THE QUEEN

v

TREMAYNE JORDAN SALT

Hearing: 29 June 2017

Appearances:

M Hammer for the Crown
M N Pecotic for the Defendant

Sentencing:

29 June 2017

SENTENCE OF WOODHOUSE J

Solicitors / Counsel:
Ms M Hammer, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Ms M N Pecotic, Barrister, Auckland

R v SALT [2017] NZHC 1467 [29 June 2017]

[1] Mr Salt, you can stay seated until I have finished. I need to explain the sentence, not just to you – you understand that in considerable measure because there has been a sentence indication already – but I do need to explain it to the community as a whole because what you have done is not simply an offence against the victim, and indeed his father, but against the community. And of course the community includes your own family.

[2] You appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for each offence is 14 years imprisonment. You pleaded guilty following a sentence indication I gave you in May.

Facts

[3] I will summarise the facts to which you pleaded guilty and which are contained in a summary of facts that you accepted before you pleaded guilty.

[4] You are a member of a gang involved in serious criminal offending, including the supply of methamphetamine. And, Mr Salt, it does not really matter whether I describe it as a gang or something else, but you were involved with a number of people.

[5] Over a 12 month period Antony Jenkin built up a substantial debt to your gang for methamphetamine allegedly supplied to him by your brother Heston. Your brother was jointly charged with you for the kidnapping and for some other offences. Threats were made to Anthony Jenkin and he went into hiding with his son, Daniel.

[6] You and, allegedly, your brother decided to kidnap Daniel and hold him with threats to try and get the debt paid by his father. You found out where Daniel lived and lured him out of the house. You were armed with a .22 calibre pistol. You pointed this at him, got him into a car and took him with others to a house where he was then effectively imprisoned. You, or others with you, made him call his father and ask his father to repay the debt under threat. You and others took turns assaulting Daniel by punching him to the body and face and assaulting him with an aluminium pipe. Your brother allegedly stabbed him in the knee with a scalpel. He was held at the house for

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 1467
Case: [2017] NZHC 1467
Decision Date: 29 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Salt is a criminal case heard by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. The defendant, Tremaye Jordan Salt, pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping and one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these offences. The legal issues involved determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, and the reduction for his guilty pleas. The court also needed to decide on any additional orders sought by the Crown.

The court's reasoning began by setting an 11-year starting point for the sentence, based on the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's criminal history. The court considered various personal factors, such as the defendant's age, his background, and his expressed remorse. The court decided to reduce the sentence by nine months to account for these factors. Additionally, the court applied a 20% reduction for the defendant's guilty pleas, resulting in a final sentence of 8 years and 2 months for each offence, to run concurrently. The court also issued an order for suppression of the sentencing notes pending the trial of the defendant's co-accused and ordered the destruction of the firearm used in the offences.

Orders