Legal Research
Cases
R v Salter

R v Salter

Case [2024] NZHC 381 29 February 2024

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2023-070-3587

[2024] NZHC 381

THE KING

v

JOHN SALTER

Hearing: 29 February 2024

Appearances:

A J Pollett and H J Speight for Crown T F Rickard-Simms for Mr Salter

Judgment:

29 February 2024

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Mr Salter you appear for sentence today, having pleaded guilty to murdering your wife Jean.1

[2]In order to decide what sentence is appropriate I will address three matters:

(a)First, I will describe the facts of your offending. I acknowledge this may be distressing for you, and possibly others, but sentencing is a public process, so I have to talk about the detail of what happened.

(b)Second, I will outline your personal circumstances.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v SALTER [2024] NZHC 381 [29 February 2024]

(c)Third, I will consider the appropriate sentence, applying the relevant law to your case.

The offending

[3] Mr Salter, you pleaded guilty to murdering your wife of 60 years, Ms Jean Salter on 8 October 2023. The facts of that offending are set out in the summary of facts which forms the agreed basis for sentencing.

[4] You had resided with Jean in a retirement village for 18 years. Jean had been suffering from mild Alzheimer’s for approximately one year before her death. You undertook a number of household duties that Jean had otherwise done over the course of your 60 year marriage when the Alzheimer’s developed.

[5] On Wednesday 4 October 2023 you were approached at your apartment by a member of the retirement village about the fact of Jean wandering through the apartment block in the morning due to her Alzheimer’s. There was a suggestion that she be moved to an Alzheimer’s facility at another location which had become available. This caused you to become stressed and concerned about being separated from Jean.

[6] You then spoke to Jean over the next week about a suicide pact. Jean nodded in agreement when you raised this plan before forgetting the arrangement because of her Alzheimer’s.

[7] You then started preparing to give effect to the plan to end both of your lives by taking additional blood thinners over the course of the week. On Sunday 8 October 2023, you and Jean woke early and travelled to McDonald’s and Robert Harris Papamoa for your respective breakfasts. You sat in the car before returning home prior to midday.

[8] At home, you prepared to carry out the plan. You took a necktie from the laundry and placed it under a couch cushion in the lounge close to Jean’s armchair. You also placed two kitchen knives in the bathroom, with the intention of killing yourself after killing Jean.

[9] In the afternoon you made a cup of coffee for Jean and sat with her in the lounge. At some point you got up and asked Jean to drink her cup of coffee before moving towards…

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 Salter

Details

AGLC: R v Salter [2024] NZHC 381
Case: [2024] NZHC 381
Decision Date: 29 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand is R v Salter, in which the defendant, John Salter, has pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife, Jean. The court heard the matter on 29 February 2024, with Mr Salter represented by T F Rickard-Simms and the Crown by A J Pollett and H J Speight. The central legal issue was whether a life sentence for murder would be manifestly unjust given Mr Salter's personal circumstances and the nature of the offence. The court also had to determine the appropriate finite sentence for the offence.

The court examined the personal circumstances of Mr Salter, who is 80 years old and has been married to Jean for 60 years. They had resided in a retirement village for 18 years, during which Jean developed mild Alzheimer's disease. The court noted that Mr Salter had taken on household duties to support Jean as her condition deteriorated. The circumstances leading up to the murder were driven by Mr Salter's distress over the potential separation from Jean due to her condition and their mutual agreement to end their lives together. The court found Mr Salter's remorse to be genuine and his actions to be driven by compassion rather than malice.

The court considered the aggravating factors of premeditation, Jean's vulnerability due to her Alzheimer's, and the extent of the loss of life. However, these were balanced against mitigating factors such as Mr Salter's age, remorse, and the unusual circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that imposing a life sentence would be manifestly unjust given the personal and exceptional circumstances of the case.

After determining that a life sentence was inappropriate, the court assessed the appropriate finite sentence. The court found that an eight-year starting point was appropriate, considering the intentional taking of Jean's life and the significant personal circumstances. The court applied discounts for Mr Salter's guilty plea, good character, and other mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of four years' imprisonment. The court decided not to impose a minimum period of imprisonment, allowing Mr Salter to be eligible for parole after serving one-third of his sentence.

The final order of the court was that Mr Salter be sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the murder of his wife, Jean. The court emphasized the importance of Mr Salter considering his future and making plans for his release, given his age and lack of support in New Zealand.

Orders