Police v Pati [2016] WSADC 2 (9 February 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pati [2016] WSADC 2

Case name:	Police v Pati
Citation:	[2016] WSADC 2
Decision date:	9 February 2016
Parties:	POLICE v SIO PATI and SETEFANO PATI aka NEPA both males of Toamua.
Hearing date(s):	8 February 2016
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- In light of the offending, and having regard to the credit that each defendant would get for his early guilty plea, I am satisfied that while a term of around 18 months imprisonment would be appropriate for Sio Pati (being less than 3 years) and a term of around 12 months imprisonment would be appropriate for Setefano Pati (also being less than 3 years), because the defendants are alcoholics they should be given the chance to undertake treatment in the ADC and they are now remanded to 2pm on Tuesday 16 February 2016 in the ADC. -
Representation:	L Sua-Mailo, O Tagaloa and F Ioane for prosecution V Schuster for defendants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:	causing actual bodily harm with intent – maximum penalty – early guilty plea –clinician assessment – treatment – imprisonment term -
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.118 (1), s.119 (1) Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s.25
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

SIO PATI and SETEFANO PATI aka NEPA both males of Toamua.

Defendants

Counsel:
L Sua-Mailo, O Tagaloa and F Ioane for prosecution
V Schuster for defendants

Decision: 9 February 2016

DECISION OF SAPOLU CJ

Introduction

1. The defendants Sio Pati a 25 year old male and Setefano Pati a 35 year old male both of Toamua appear before the Court having pleaded guilty to the joint charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. Sio Pati has also pleaded guilty to the individual charge against him of with intent to cause actual bodily harm wounded the victim, contrary to s.118 (1) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment and to the individual charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a brick, without a lawful purpose, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment. For the reasons which follow both defendants are now remanded to the Alcohol and Drugs Court (AOD) for a determination hearing at 2pm on Tuesday 16 February 2016.
2. As this is one of the first two decisions of this Court remanding a defendant to the ADC it is appropriate that I set out my reasons in full, commencing with the background to the establishment of that Court.

Background

3. It has long been apparent to myself and other Judges of the Supreme and District Courts that many offenders appear before the Courts for criminal conduct committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For many such people, they have led an otherwise decent life, working hard, supporting their families and contributing to their village and church. But under the influence of alcohol and drugs, their behaviours deteriorate to the point where they often commit serious criminal offences, causing harm to their victims and communities.
4. It has also become apparent to me that the Courts can take an active role in reducing the risk of reoffending by requiring offenders to address those behaviours that have caused them to offend. Two years ago, the Family Violence Court was established in the District Court. In that Court, offenders are given the chance to undergo a stopping violence programme from which they learn how better to manage their behaviours and relationships thereby reducing the risk of them resorting to violence in the future.
5. A similar opportunity is now available for those whose offending is driven by their abuse of or dependency on alcohol and other drugs with the establishment of the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC) within the Supreme Court. The aim of the ADC is to reduce the risk of offending by ensuring that those with a serious alcohol or drugs problem are required to undertake appropriate rehabilitative programmes under the strict supervision of the ADC, thereby reducing their risk of reoffending.

The process for entry into the Alcohol and Drugs Court (ADC)

6. Given our limited resources, the ADC will run as a three year pilot project, available only to those who meet the eligibility criteria (which are annexed to this decision). Determination of whether an offender is suitable for the ADC starts in the criminal mentions list. The offender must plead guilty to his offence and live in the region from Afega to Laulii. If the offending was committed under the influence or in pursuit of alcohol or drugs, he/she will be stood down to be screened by the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) clinician.
7. The purpose of the screen is to determine the extent of the alcohol or drug problem. If it is not a serious problem, the offender will not be suitable for the ADC but will still get access to a suitable rehabilitation programme through the probation service. If, however, the offender has a moderate to serious abuse problem or is addicted/dependent on alcohol or drugs, he/she may be suitable for the ADC and, in such cases the offender will be remanded for two weeks for a full assessment, also conducted by the AOD clinician.
8. The assessment is a clinical document in which the AOD clinician will set out relevant background matters, and advise the Court as to the extent of the alcohol or drugs problem, the appropriate rehabilitative programmes for that person and whether he/she should be referred to the ADC to monitor the offender while he/she completes the programmes.
9. The ADC is an intensive monitoring Court in which all offenders are required to complete the appropriate rehabilitative programmes, and prohibited from drinking alcohol and using drugs while in the Court. They will also be required to complete life skills programmes if necessary, complete voluntary work in the community, and engage in a healthy lifestyle. The purpose of all this is to do what the Court can to change their attitudes and behaviours around alcohol and drug abuse and therefore reduce the risk that they will reoffend. As we will be working with not only the offender but his/her family and village, it is likely that these changes will be long term and supported by the family and village who stand to benefit greatly from such changes in behaviour.
10. Therefore if the AOD clinician recommends a referral to the ADC, the offender will be so referred unless a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence. While imprisonment will not always be appropriate for those addicted to alcohol or drugs (addiction meaning an offender has no real control over his alcohol or drug use), it will often be appropriate for those who are not addicted, even where their level of abuse is high. This is because it would be contrary to the view of this Court that, where someone can control their alcohol drug use, it should not operate to mitigate the appropriate sentence.
11. Where a decision is made to refer an offender to the ADC, he/she is remanded to the next available ADC date for a determination hearing. In other words, while in the mentions list a Judge must determine whether an offender should be referred to the ADC, the final decision as to whether to offer someone a place in the ADC rests with the ADC Judge after consultation with the ADC team.

The defendants before the Court

12. According to the assessments by the AOD clinician, each of the defendants Sio Pati and Setefano Pati meets the DSM-5 criteria for alcohol dependence because of his recurrent use of alcohol in a 12 month period and it is recommended that both defendants be referred to complete the Intensive Outpatient Programme through the ADC.
13. In light of the offending, and having regard to the credit that each defendant would get for his early guilty plea, I am satisfied that while a term of around 18 months imprisonment would be appropriate for Sio Pati (being less than 3 years) and a term of around 12 months imprisonment would be appropriate for Setefano Pati (also being less than 3 years), because the defendants are alcoholics they should be given the chance to undertake treatment in the ADC and they are now remanded to 2pm on Tuesday 16 February 2016 in the ADC.
    

---------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE