Police v Galuvao [2001] WSCA 3 (23 November 2001)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

IN THE MATTER of The Judicature Ordinance 1961
and The Criminal Procedure Act 1972

AND

IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to Section 164L
of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Appellant

AND:

SAM GALUVAO aka
VINCENT SIALAOA
Respondent

Coram: The Hon. Sir Ian Barker, (presiding)
The Rt Hon. Sir Ian McKay
The Hon. Justice Robertson

Hearing:22 November 2001

Counsel: Raymond Schuster for Appellant
Jerry Brunt for Respondent

Judgement: 23 November 2001

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY SIR IAN BARKER

In the course of a trial at which the respondent initially had faced a charge of manslaughter, the respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm. The manslaughter charge had been withdrawn by the prosecution.

On 27 November 2000, Vai’i J sentenced the respondent to two years' probation and 100 hours community service On 11 December 2000, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against sentence. The notice was promptly served on the lawyer who had appeared for the respondent at the trial. That lawyer refused to accept service of the notice of appeal which was then served personally on the respondent by a Police officer on 13 December 2000. That aspect of compliance with the rules and the necessary consequence of service was satisfactory.

The Court of Appeal Rules required the record to have been filed by the appellant within six weeks of the filing of the notice of appeal. This was not done. Nor was there any application for an extension of time Accordingly, for the reasons stated in two other decisions of this Court delivered at this present session, this appeal must be deemed to have been abandoned. See Police v Etelagi & Ors and Police v Faasolo and Ors.

The respondent can consider himself fortunate that the appeal has had to be dismissed because of the failure of the appellant to comply with the Rules. He inflicted a heavy blow on the victim after a drinking session on 5 August 2000 in which both had participated. The victim fell on the ground with serious head injuries. He was abandoned by the respondent and died shortly thereafter.

On the face of it, the sentence seems extremely lenient. However, we do not enter into a consideration of the merits of the appeal which cannot succeed in the circumstances.

The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Attorney-General's Office, Apia, for Appellant
Toailoa & Associates, Apia, for Respondent