Salt v R

Case [2022] NZCA 611 6 December 2022

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA176/2022
[2022] NZCA 611

BETWEEN	TREMAYNE JORDAN SALT Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	23 November 2022
Court:	Goddard, Woolford and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest for Appellant Z R Hamill for Crown
Judgment:	6 December 2022 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AAn extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe application to adduce fresh evidence is declined.
C The appeal is allowed.
DThe concurrent sentences of eight years and two months’ imprisonment on each charge are quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

On 29 June 2017, Mr Salt was sentenced to eight years and two months’ imprisonment on charges of kidnapping and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] He now appeals against the sentence, almost five years out of time. Leave is required.

Leave to appeal

[1]R v Salt [2017] NZHC 1467.

Mr Salt has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. He says the Judge gave him a small discount for personal factors, but overall he was unhappy with the sentence. He asked his lawyer about an appeal, but she told him there was no point in appealing as an appeal would not succeed.
It was only when he later spoke to other prisoners that he learnt that a cultural report may enable an otherwise appropriate sentence to be discounted when an offender’s background is said to have been a cause of their offending. He also recently found out that his age at the time he committed the crimes (21 years old) meant he may also be able to get a discount for that too.
This Court has regularly held that it will only entertain an appeal that is many years out of time in exceptional circumstances. That said, the merits of the appeal are likely to be determinative of a leave application in such circumstances. The Crown opposes leave for the same reasons that it opposes the appeal on the merits.

Factual background

Mr Salt was part of a street gang called Dope Money Sex (DMS), which was involved in serious criminal offending, including the supply of methamphetamine. Over a 12 month period, the victim’s father built up a substantial debt to the gang for methamphetamine allegedly supplied to him by Mr Salt’s older brother. Threats were made to the victim’s father and he and the victim went into hiding.
In an effort to secure repayment of the drug debt, Mr Salt and his brother decided to kidnap the victim and hold him against his will with threats to try and get his father to pay the debt paid owed by him. At around 10:30 pm on 10 July 2016, Mr Salt and his brother found out where the victim lived and lured him out of the house. Mr Salt was armed with a .22 calibre rifle. He pointed this at the victim, got…

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 Salt v R

Details

AGLC: Salt v R [2022] NZCA 611
Case: [2022] NZCA 611
Decision Date: 6 December 2022 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Salt v R, involves the appellant, Tremaine Jordan Salt, appealing against his sentence of eight years and two months’ imprisonment on charges of kidnapping and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appeal was made almost five years out of time. The appeal is centred on the sufficiency of the discount applied to the sentence, considering mitigating factors such as youth, family circumstances, and remorse. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences.

The reasoning of the Court involved a comprehensive examination of the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The Court found that a discount of 10% for youth was warranted, given Mr Salt's age and the influence of his environment and older brothers. Additionally, the Court identified that a 10% discount for family circumstances was appropriate, taking into account Mr Salt's addiction and the impact of his upbringing. A further 5% discount for remorse was also considered suitable, reflecting Mr Salt's willingness to participate in restorative justice and his acknowledgment of the need for rehabilitation. The Court concluded that a total discount of 25% was appropriate, which, when combined with the 20% discount for a guilty plea, resulted in an end sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

The Court granted an extension of time to appeal, allowed the appeal, and replaced the original sentences with concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment on each charge. This decision underscores the importance of considering mitigating factors in sentencing, while also acknowledging the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders