Salt v The King - [2023] NZCA 404

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA683/2022
[2023] NZCA 404

BETWEEN	HESTON SALT Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	18 July 2023
Court:	Gilbert, Lang and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest for Appellant H D L Steele and D S Houghton for Respondent
Judgment:	29 August 2023 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Mr Salt pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Venning J sentenced him to eight years and four months’ imprisonment, constructed as follows:[1]
(a)adopting a starting point of 11 years’ imprisonment;
(b)applying an uplift of six months for offending while subject to release conditions;
(c)allowing a discount of 10 per cent for Mr Salt’s disadvantaged background and cultural disconnection; and
(d)allowing a discount of 17.5 per cent for his guilty pleas.
[1]R v Salt [2022] NZHC 3007 [Sentencing notes].
Mr Salt appeals against his sentence. He contends the overall sentence was manifestly excessive for four reasons:
(a)the starting point was manifestly excessive and should have been in the range of seven to eight years;
(b)the discount for personal mitigating factors was inadequate and should have been 20 per cent;
(c)a full discount of 25 per cent ought to have been allowed for the guilty pleas in all the circumstances; and
(d)a discount of five per cent ought to have been allowed for remorse.

The facts

At around 7.30 am on 29 February 2020, Mr Salt and three unknown associates drove to an address in Mt Roskill in Mr Salt’s car. The driver remained in the car outside the address. Mr Salt and the other two offenders entered the house through the laundry door. Mr Salt was not armed but the other two were, one with a 12-gauge shotgun and the other with a .22 calibre rifle. Both firearms were loaded.
The Eliu family have lived at the house for nearly 30 years. Living there at the time were nine family members — Mr and Mrs Eliu, their two adult daughters, their partners (Messrs Finau and Vea) and three grandchildren. However, one of the daughters and two of the grandchildren happened to be away from the house at the time of the offending.
When Mr Finau saw Mr Salt and his associates enter the house through the laundry, he told his partner, who was heavily pregnant, to hide in the bedroom cupboard. One of Mr Salt’s associates approached Mr Finau and shot him with the .22 calibre rifle. The bullet penetrated Mr Finau’s’ right eye and lodged in his brain. This offender then fired again, with the bullet lodging in the door jamb of Mr Finau’s room. Mr Finau suffered serious injuries to his eye and left ear, with the largest metal fragments lying in his left middle ear cavity. Mr Finau has permanently lost vision in his right eye.
Mr and Mrs Eliu were in…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Salt v The King [2023] NZCA 404
Case: [2023] NZCA 404
Decision Date: 29 August 2023 at 11am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Salt v The King was heard, with Heston Salt appealing against his sentence. Salt had pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Venning J had sentenced him to eight years and four months’ imprisonment. Salt’s appeal focused on four contentions: the starting point was manifestly excessive and should have been in the range of seven to eight years; the discount for personal mitigating factors was inadequate and should have been 20 per cent; a full discount of 25 per cent ought to have been allowed for the guilty pleas in all the circumstances; and a discount of five per cent ought to have been allowed for remorse.

The Court considered the starting point to be appropriate, given the seriousness of the offending. The Court found the discount for personal mitigating factors to be adequate, rejecting the submission that a discount of 20 per cent should have been allowed. Regarding the discount for guilty pleas, the Court found that the Judge was right to recognise that some reduction was required, considering all relevant circumstances. Finally, the Court held that the Judge was not satisfied on the basis of the material put before him that Salt was genuinely remorseful.

Ultimately, the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The Court found no appealable error in the Judge’s assessment of the appropriate starting point, discount for personal mitigating factors, discount for guilty pleas, and the absence of a discount for remorse.

Orders