	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback District Court of Samoa

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

District Court of Samoa

You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> District Court of Samoa >> 2013 >> [2013] WSDC 1

Police v Schuster [2013] WSDC 1 (12 July 2013)

District Court of Samoa

Police v Schuster [2013] WSDC 1

Case name: Police v Shuster

Citation: [2013] WSDC 1

Decision date: 12 July 2013

Parties:
POLICE (Prosecution) v TOEOLESULUSULU CEDRIC SCHUSTER male of Satapuala, MUAGUTUTIA AKERIPATOELEPAIALII male of Satapuala, VAILI MIMITA male of Satapuala, SAKALIA AKA FALEFAGA SAKALIA male of Satapuala,ILIOLEMALAE SEIFAAMAU FAGA male of Satapuala, UIKAI SAMUELU FALEUPOLU male of Satapuala, LASEI SIONE male of Satapuala, LESISAMOA FAGA male of Satapuala, SAMUELU MAUGA male of Satapuala, TAGI FIFITA male of Satapuala, LUA AIGA male of Satapuala, FAAMATALA AUKUSO male of Satapuala, TOMASI ILIOLETUTU male of Satapuala, SANI ILI male of Satapuala, PA’U TAVITA male of Satapuala, SAMUELU LAGALAGA male of Satapuala, AMOSA MAINI male of Satapuala, TOESE PUNAVAI female of Satapuala

Hearing date(s): 29^th, 30^th April, 01^st, 02^nd, 03^rd, 06^th, 07^th, 08^th, 09^th & 10^th May 2013

File number(s): D4244/12, D4245/12, D4246/12

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s):

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms Leinafo Taimalelagi for the prosecution.
Mr Tuala K Enari for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 16th, & 17th named defendants;
Mr Papalii Li’o T Masepa’u for the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 18th named defendants

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Police Offences Ordinance 1961 Section 10, 25 (1) (a), (b) or (c)
Arms Ordinance 1960 Section 9
Crimes Ordinance 1961 Section 30

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

TOEOLESULUSULU CEDRIC SCHUSTER male of Satapuala

First Defendant

MUAGUTUTIA AKERIPATOELEPAIALII male of Satapuala

Second Defendant

VAILI MIMITA male of Satapuala

Third Defendant

SAKALIA AKA FALEFAGA SAKALIA male of Satapuala

Forth Defendant

ILIOLEMALAE SEIFAAMAU FAGA male of Satapuala

Fifth Defendant

UIKAI SAMUELU FALEUPOLU male of Satapuala

Sixth Defendant

LASEI SIONE male of Satapuala

Seventh Defendant

LESISAMOA FAGA male of Satapuala

Eighth Defendant

SAMUELU MAUGA male of Satapuala

Ninth Defendant

TAGI FIFITA male of Satapuala

Tenth Defendant

LUA AIGA male of Satapuala

Eleventh Defendant

FAAMATALA AUKUSO male of Satapuala

Twelfth Defendant

TOMASI ILIOLETUTU male of Satapuala

Thirteenth Defendant

SANI ILI male of Satapuala

Fourteen Defendants

PA’U TAVITA male of Satapuala

Fifteenth Defendant

SAMUELU LAGALAGA male of Satapuala

Sixteenth Defendant

AMOSA MAINI male of Satapuala

Seventeenth Defendant

TOESE PUNAVAI female of Satapuala

Eighteenth Defendant

COUNSEL: Ms Leinafo Taimalelagi for the prosecution.

Mr Tuala K Enari for the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 12^th, 16^th, & 17^th named defendants;

Mr Papalii Li’o T Masepa’u for the 1^st, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, and 18^th named defendants

HEARING: 29^th, 30^th April, 01^st, 02^nd, 03^rd, 06^th, 07^th, 08^th, 09^th & 10^th May 2013.

SUBMISSIONS: 28^th May 2013

DECISION: 12^th July 2013

DECISION OF VAEPULE VAEMOA VA’AI (DCJ)

Background

Traffic between Faleolo airport and Apia was disrupted in the early hours of Thursday the 16^th of August 2012 at Satapuala. The cause of the disruption was a stone wall erected on the main road on the airport side of the intersection at the village. Since there were no signs of the stone wall being removed by anyone that day a contingent of police officers from the main office in Apia went to clear it. The clearance of the road led to a confrontation with the villagers which included the defendants. The confrontation turned violent and led to the charges against the defendants in these proceedings.

Charges

All eighteen defendants are jointly charged with unlawfully assemblying at Satapuala on the 16^th of August 2012. Twelve of them face separate additional charges.
Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster faces an additional seven counts of resisting the police under Section 10 (1) (a), (b) or (c) Police Offences Ordinance 1961, or alternatively with seven counts of threatening and/or insulting words pursuant to S. 4(g) and of the same Ordinance. Muagututi’a Akeripa Toa’lepaiali’i faces eight counts of resisting/obstructing the police and in the alternative one count of threatening words. Vaili Mimita faces an additional 17 counts of resisting the police or alternatively six counts of threatening words. Ga Sakaria faces four counts of resisting the police or in the alternative three counts of using insulting and/or threatening words. Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga faces four counts of resisting the police or alternatively four counts of using threatening words. Lesisamoa Faga also faces a charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon pursuant to S.25 Police Offences Ordinance. Samuelu Mauga also faces one count of resisting the police and a charge of possessing an unlicensed firearm pursuant to S. 9 of the Arms Ordinance 1960. Lua Aiga faces six counts of either using threatening words, or in the alternative four counts of obstructing the police and one count of being armed with a dangerous weapon. Faamatala Aukuso also faces one count of obstructing police and a charge of possessing an unlicensed firearm. Sani Ili and Pa’u Tavita also each face a charge of being armed with dangerous weapons. Toese Punavai also faces a charge of using insulting words.

The Evidence

Accounts by several occupants of some of the motor vehicles stopped at the road block that morning before daylight were heard. They considered what they encountered an unnecessary inconvenience and found the experience offensive. They said the young men who stopped them were disrespectful. They were apparently searching cars for police officers.
Muagututi’a Akeripa a matai of Satapuala resides in Vaimoso. He said he only knew of the road block through the radio news that morning. He decided to go to Satapuala. Before he left he said he called Toeolesulusulu Cedric and told him to attend and represent the village at a meeting with Government officials scheduled that morning in Apia since he (Muagututi’a) was going to Satapuala. When he arrived he saw the road block. Present at the roadblock were taulele’a (untitled males). He said he instructed them not to interfere anymore with the traffic, before he joined the gathering of matai. There, he found out the police were planning on attacking the village. He did not elaborate the reason why the police would do that.
Vaili Mimita is the tu’ua (leading orator) of Satapuala. He lives at Satapuala about three miles inland from where the road block was. He said matai of the village gathered the morning of 16^th August 2012. He came seaward to join. He arrived around 8.30am. He saw the road block upon his arrival. He said he instructed the taulele’a at the road block to remove it. He then joined the gathering of matai. At the gathering he became aware that the police were planning to pay a visit to the village sometime that day. The matai decided that keeping the peace was a priority. Keeping whom from disturbing the peace was not explained.
1. Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster resides at Vaoala. He is a matai of Satapuala. On the morning of the day in question he represented his village at a meeting of government officials in Apia. He said he knew about the road block only when the Commissioner of Police told him at the meeting, not from Muagututi’aas the latter claimed. He was also informed by the Commissioner that the police were preparing to go to Satapuala to clear the road. When the meeting ended he went directly to Satapuala to relay the outcome of the meeting. He arrived at Satapuala about an hour after the meeting ended. He said he also saw only half a stone wall (on the hump) when he arrived. If this is correct, then the new stonewall on the Apia side of the intersection must have been erected while he was at the gathering of Matai. He went directly to where the matai gathered and explained the outcome of the meeting. He said he was in the process of asking the village matai to have the road block removed when they abruptly stood up and left to await the arrival of the police contingent which was reportedly getting closer to the village.
Television footage of the road block taken by the local stations TV One and TV Three around mid-morning was shown as part of the prosecution’s evidence. It showed several unidentified village taulele’a manning the road block. Most had their heads partially wrapped in cloth presumably an attempt to hide their faces. They were acting in a way which I cannot truthfully describe as keeping the peace. Instead their faces showed signs of defiance. Of whom, I can imagine but cannot be sure.
Between 1.00pm and 2.00pm that afternoon the police arrived at Satapuala. They formed themselves in a two team formation. The first team was the frontline which comprised mostly of officers of the Special Response Unit (SRU). They were armed with firearms for the safety of the contingent. Some led the way while others covered both sides of the second team. The second team comprised of uniformed officers which followed directly behind. Their purpose was to clear the people and the rocks blocking the road. The second team was made up of the arresting officers who were armed with riot shields and helmets to shield themselves as well as their unarmed colleagues with them, the rock removal group.
The frontline stopped near the boundary of Faleatiu and Satapuala villages and disembarked from their vehicles. They proceeded on foot towards Satapuala. There was a line of rocks across the road not far from where they disembarked. They cleared it without difficulty and moved on to the next roadblock. They saw as they approached the intersection not one but two separate stonewalls erected on the road. There was the initial stone wall set up earlier and a new one erected on the Apia side of the intersection. Sgt. Kapeli Faalogo one of the leaders in the frontline used a loud speaker to ask the villagers to clear the road.
Before reaching the stone wall nearest to them they were met by Muagututi’a Akeripa, Vaili Mimita, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga and a fourth man. The four men asked the police to talk matters out before they proceeded further. The police declined and informed them the time for talking was past. After a brief verbal exchange with the four men the frontline officers led by Superintendent Misa Talaimanu walked past them proceeding towards the first of the two stonewalls. The frontline fired shots in the air to warn people off from blocking their path. When they neared the closest stone wall the frontline called the second team to join them. The villagers had by then gathered en masse near the first stone wall. It was when the second police team reached the first stonewall that the confrontation with the villagers began.
The second team met fierce resistance at the first stone wall from the villagers who gathered there. As a group the second team pressed on as the villagers had themselves formed a human wall to stop them from reaching the stone wall. Amidst the wall of people blocking the police path were Vaili Mimita, Muagututi’a Akeripa, Toeolesulusulu Cedric, Ga Sakalia, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga, Lua Aiga, Tagi Fifita and Sani Ili. The villagers shouted obscenities at and threatened the police according to witnesses. In addition, some or all of them called out to the police not to remove the rocks on the road. The two sides pushed and shoved against each other for a period which varied from half an hour according to some prosecution witnesses to around two hours according to others. Despite the variances in duration the second team experienced clearing the stone wall on the Apia side of the intersection the most difficult.
Constable Parnell Pao said that while standing with the other villagers in front of the first stonewall Toeolesulusulu called out “Fa’akali, faakali sei vala’au aku kama ia poo le a le iuga o oukou” (Wait, wait while I call out the boys what your end will be). Former Constable Silolo Mafutaga said that during the struggle with the villagers at the first stone wall he heard the sound of gunshots. He also saw at that time Toeolesulusulu amongst the villagers struggling against the police. As the police were removing rocks from the road Toeolesulusulu yelled at them “e faapega o ga fai gi mea kou kefe, ufa leoleo” (is that how things are done you circumcised, arses, police). Also at the first stone wall, Constable Junior Afereti said he recognised Toeolesulusulu and Vaili Mimita. He saw and heard Vaili Mimita call out “O, o loga uiga o le mea le ga o loo magagao ai leoleo, ia o gei lava e liu efuefu ai le malae vaalele ma le ofisa o leoleo” (Oh, if that is the meaning of what you want, police, then the airport and the police station will turn into ashes today). At the same time he also saw Toeolesulusulu on top of the stone wall. Corporal Kalati Tusani said he saw Toeolesulusulu standing together with the villagers in front of the first stone wall resisting the police. He was further seen standing on top of the same stone wall with villagers standing behind him.
Constable Setu Tuilaepa was with the frontline and armed with a rifle. After they removed the line of rocks at the boundary of Satapuala and Faleatiu he said the police proceeded towards the first stone wall. There, Const. Tuilaepa said he saw Muagututi’a Akeripa together with other matai. It was also at this wall that Muagututi’a and other matai pushed back the police telling them not to remove the rocks from the road. He confirmed that the police officers at the front of the contingent met the strongest resistance against them at the first stonewall.
Sergeant Faalogo Kapeli who carried the loudspeaker said he asked people on the police path to clear the road as he moved towards the first stonewall. Faalogo said Iliolemalae Faga at that point forcibly grabbed the loudspeaker from of him. He also told Sergeant Faalogo “Tapuni lou gutu, aua le toe masae i luga” (Shut your mouth, don’t rip it up again). Faalogo saw members of the village standing together opposing the police at the first stone wall. He said no one including the accused Muagututi’a Akeripa did anything to bring about peace. Among the villagers he saw pushing against the police were Muagututi’a Akeripa, Vaili Mimita, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga and the Member of Parliament.
Constable Tavita Tunupopo said he saw Muagututi’a Akeripa, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga and Toeolesulusulu during the confrontation. They were in front of the first stone wall. In his view they were leading the villagers encouraging them to stop the police from reaching the stone wall. Constable Patu at the same time also heard Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga say “Kefe, pau a le ga o le mea kou ke fifiki ai o faga” (Circumcise, guns are the only thing that make you gutsy).
Constable Tivoli Paga said that when the police reached the first stone wall where the majority of the villagers gathered, he saw Vaili amongst them. There, as Constable Paga tried to remove the rocks from the road he said he pushed Vaili who responded by saying “Kefe, komo, ufa, faakali la kou ufa” (Circumcise....arses, you wait you arses). At the first stone wall before the intersection, Constable Kalati Tusani saw Ga Sakalia (who was amongst the villagers) obstructing the police by pushing them back as they tried to remove the stone wall.
When the police finally managed to clear the first stone wall the villagers again reassembled in front of the second stonewall some even sitting on the road directly in the path of the police. Constable Junior Afereti heard the defendants Toeolesulusulu and Vaili encouraging the villagers to sit on the road directly in the path of the second team. The police were forced to physically remove them from their path to the next stone wall.
Corporal Timoteo Ufagalilo gave evidence. He said that at the second stone wall he met Vaili Mimita. He also saw Ga Sakalia. While the police were trying to remove the last stone wall Corporal Ufagalilo saw Ga Sakalia pushing out at police officers. He was also heard by Ufagalilo saying “Kefe, aikae, o ese e leai se kou fe’au” (Circumcise, shit eaters, go away you have no business).
There is no evidence of any villager helping the police clear the rocks off the road at the first stone wall. There is evidence that as the police officers cleared the rocks from the road, some villagers threw them back. There is evidence that some villagers helped remove rocks from the road at the last wall. The confrontation took place amidst verbal abuse hurled at the police. Stones and other objects were thrown at them. Molotov cocktails were thrown in their path. Several of the shields carried by police officers were hit by rocks and sticks. One villager armed with an axe and another with a golf club was seen by some officers in the second team during the clash. Two police officers hit by objects thrown at them received head injuries.
The police were able to eventually clear the last stonewall. Once the roadblocks were cleared the police contingent proceeded towards the airport. When they reached the police station at Faleolo they set up several check points on the road. At one of the check points the police stopped and searched a pickup truck driven by Samuel Mauga. Inside it, a firearm and bullets were found. The bullets were in one of two magazines found with the gun and some in a clear bottle. The rifle and bullets were seized by the police and produced in evidence.
Most of the prosecution witnesses told the Court the mixed feelings they experienced before during and after the confrontation. Most were naturally fearful for their safety. They felt worried and concerned about the violent behaviour of the villagers especially the taulele’a. Some were tearful as they recalled the experience. Others still felt saddened by the fact they never expected to experience as police officers what they went through that afternoon in a community that prides itself in the custom of mutual respect.
Toeolesulusulu denies swearing at any police officer on the day. He said he was playing the role of mediator between the police and the villagers. His intention was not to resist the police while clearing the road. Mugututi’a Akeripa denies telling the police officers not to remove rocks blocking the road. He further denies physically resisting any police officer. Vaili claims his role was not to resist the police but rather to control the taulele’a.
The evidence of Constable(s) Parnell Pao, Junior Afereti, Turo Tamasese, Sililo Mafutaga, Setu Tuilaepa, Tavita Tunupopo, Tivoli Paga, Kalati Tusani, Timoteo Ufagalilo, Tony Tevaga, Lome Lome, Repeka Vaavale, Corporal Tema Solia, Sergeant(s) Kapeli Fa’alogo, Koroseta Uati, Misipele Fiatau, Junior Tofilau, Keni Tuumatavai, and Reupena Faailo (amongst other witnesses), overwhelmingly shows that Toeolesulusulu, Muagututi’a, Vaili, Ga Sakalia and Iliolemalae Faga, were present at the time of the confrontation. The same evidence also sufficiently proves that Lua Aiga, Tagi Fifita, Sani Ili, Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu, Lasei Sione, Lesisamoa Faga, Tomasi Ilioletutu, Samuelu Lagalaga, Amosa Maini and Toese Punavai were also present at the time of the confrontation with the police. With the exception of Lua Aiga, Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu, Lasei Sione, and Amosa Maini all the other defendants do not deny being present before and during the confrontation.
All in all, ninety five witnesses were called to give evidence. Eighty one (81) for the prosecution and fourteen (14) for the defendants.

No Case Ruling

At the close of the prosecution case counsels for the defendants sought dismissal of all charges on the premise that no prima facie case had been established.
I ruled that with the exception of the specific charges referred to immediately below the evidence had satisfied the Court a prima facie case had been established regarding all the other remaining charges. The charges dismissed on the basis no case had been established were;
- (a) The joint charge of unlawful assembly (D4244/12) in respect of the defendants Samuelu Mauga, Fa’amatala Aukuso and Pa’u Tavita;
- (b) Information - D4231/12 of resisting police against Faamatala Aukuso;

(d) Information – D4240/12 being armed with a dangerous weapon against Pa’u Tavita;

(e) Information - D4242/12 being armed with a dangerous weapon against Sani Ili; and

(f) Information – D4243/12 of insulting words against Toese Punavai.

Since the only charges against the Pa’u Tavita were dismissed he was discharged from the proceedings. For Lesisamoa Faga, Sani Ili and Toese Punavai, the only charge remaining against them is unlawful assembly. The only remaining charge against Faamatala Aukuso is possession of an unlicensed firearm.
The prosecution in its final submissions concedes that certain Informations are duplicate charges. These are: Informations D4677/12, D4678/12, D4679/12, D4680/12 of threatening words and D4684/12, D4687/12 of resisting police against Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster; D4648/12, D4651/12, D4653/12 of resisting police against Muagututi’a Akeripa; D4657/12, D4658/12, D4659/12, D4662/12, 4663/12, D4666/12 of resisting police and D4669/12, D4672/12 of threatening words against Vaili Mimita;
D4626/12 and D4628/12 of resisting police and D4629/12 of threatening words against Ga Sakalia; D4636/12 of threatening words and D4632/12 & D4634/12 of resisting police against Iliolemalae Seifaamau; Faga; and D4640/12 & D4641/12 of threatening words against Lua Aiga. As duplicate charges they are all dismissed.

Unlawful assembly - Information D4244/12.

The relevant provision is Section 30 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961. S. 30 (2) states:

“An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such an assembly to fear on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will, by such assembly, needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace...”

S.30 (3) says:

“Persons lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they, with a common purpose, conduct themselves in such a manner that their assembling would have been unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.”

It is not disputed that setting up the road blocks at Satapuala from the early hours to the afternoon of Thursday the 16^th of August 2012 was unlawful. The police claim that had the villagers removed the road blocks themselves there would have been no need for them to do it. Furthermore, had it not been for the physical presence of the villagers on the road blocking the police path, the confrontation which took place would not have occurred. Some of the defendants claim on the other hand that had the police discussed matters as asked the confrontation would not have happened.
The prosecution argues that the assembly became unlawful when the defendants themselves were directly or indirectly violent towards the police or without reasonable cause provoked others in the assembly to prevent the police from clearing the road. In other words, the defendants conduct in impeding the police from removing the road blocks rendered unlawful a lawful assembly because they acted the way they did with the very purpose of blocking the road in mind.
Mr Enari in defense submits that Muagututia Akeripa, Vaili Mimita, Ga Sakalia, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga, Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu, Lasei Sione, Samuelu Lagalaga and Amosa Maini were not party to any conspiracy to block the road. Furthermore, since there is no evidence any of the defendants for whom he appears was responsible for erecting the stone walls, they could not be said to have taken part in blocking the road. This argument seems to me to misconstrue the prosecution’s case which focuses on the confrontation in the afternoon rather than erecting of the stone walls on the road.
1. Mr Masepa’u submits on behalf of Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, Lua Aiga, Tagi Fifita, Sani Ili, Lesisamoa Faga, Tomasi Ilioletutu and Toese Punavai that they did not have an intention to carry out the common purpose of blocking the road. Furthermore, some of the defendants he represents were not willing participants in blocking the road.
2. In a charge of unlawful assembly, the prosecution must prove:
  - (a) There was an assembly – a gathering – of at least three people;
  - (b) The defendants intended to carry out a common purpose; and

(c) The defendants who assembled behaved in a way that was referable to their common purpose and led to others near or around them fearing on reasonable grounds that the defendants would either:

(i) use violence against people near or around them; or

(ii) needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke (otherwise by lawful conduct) others in the assembly to use violence against people near or around them.

(c) Each defendant was a party to the common purpose and a willing participant in the conduct that made the assembly unlawful.

Discussion

There is no doubt there was an assembly at the intersection on the main road at Satapuala on the date in question in terms of S. 30(2) (a) of the Act. Neither is there a doubt that the purpose common to those assembled at Satapuala on the day in question was to block the road from its normal use by the travelling public. Only two issues are therefore in dispute. First, whether or not the assembly was lawful? Second, if the assembly was unlawful, whether or not each defendant was a party to the common purpose and a willing participant in the conduct that made the assembly unlawful.
Was the assembly lawful or not? Clearing the road was the reason the police went to Satapuala. This meant if the stonewalls put on the road were not removed by those responsible for putting them there then the only option was for the police to remove them themselves peaceably or if necessary,by force.
According to Vaili the purpose of the village matai gathering that day was to keep the peace. That was indeed noble provided the conduct of the peace keepers did not interfere with the right of the travelling public to freely enjoy doing so on a public road. Despite Vaili’s assertion he ordered the removal of the rocks from the road there is neither evidence nor signs visible in footage shown to the Court to indicate an intention of those who assembled that day to clear the road either before or when the police arrived. With respect to the village tu’ua, I find his evidence that the taulele’a were instructed that morning to remove the road block not credible. The customary consequences of any taule’ale’a disobeying the matai that day is lacking in the evidence. More importantly, the footage Exhibit “P7 - A” together with the unchallenged evidence of Television reporter Meritiana Oti that Vaili Mimita himself granted them permission to film the footage negates any signs an order to clear the road was issued by Vaili or any other matai of Satapuala present at the time. Instead, it suggests that the tu’ua condoned the blocking of the road.
Almost all the police officers who gave evidence said they feared for their safety. It follows, the impression the police officers got when they arrived and when they neared the first roadblock was those who gathered at the roadblocks would most likely resort to violence or provoke others to use violence against anyone who attempted to clear the road.
There is sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court that the defendants Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, Muagututi’a Akeripa, Vaili Mimita, Ga Sakalia and Iliolemalae Faga, were by their conduct, parties to blocking of the road. They were in the midst of the confrontation especially at the first stonewall. They do not deny that.
In the circumstances each of them in my view encouraged or condoned blocking the road at the time the police were trying to clear it. The evidence is equally sufficient to establish that Toeolesulusulu, Vaili, Ga Sakalia, Muagututi’a and Iliolemalae Faga swore at or threatened the police in a manner which did not suggest an intention on their part to let the police clear the road peaceably. They may have felt that the police in the circumstances acted in a heavy handed manner but that is not the issue.
I find on the evidence that Toeolesulusulu, Muagututi’a, Vaili, Ga Sakalia and Iliolemalae Faga each provoked without reasonable cause the taulele’a and other villagers in the assembly to use violence against the police as they were clearing the road. I further find that these same defendants willingly participated in blocking the road. Accordingly I find Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, Muagututi’a Akeripa, Vaili Mimita, Ga Sakalia and Iliolemalae Faga all guilty of the charge of unlawfully assembly.
The only question remaining under this charge is whether or not each of the other remaining defendants was party to the common purpose and willingly participated in blocking the road.
Lua Aiga: The defendant works at Faleolo airport. He’d just finished work on night shift and stopped at the roadblock that morning where Constable Va’avale saw him. He admits being present at the roadblock only in the morning. He denies being at the confrontation with the police in the afternoon claiming he was resting at home. Constables Lome Lome, Tony Tevaga, Senior Constable Soliali’i Paitomaleifi and Sgt Koroseta Uati say otherwise. They all saw Aiga at the intersection in the afternoon. Const. Tevaga who was a shield carrier said he saw Aiga with his brother (who he identified as Tagi Fifita) at the first stonewall. They were part of a group of taulele’a who pushed the shield carrying officers back.
Const. Lome was responsible for the safety of the machine operator who (together with his excavator) was part of the police procession of motor vehicles which followed behind the second police team. He was stationed on the tray of the truck which carried the excavator. He said he saw Aiga during the confrontation at the first stonewall. The defendant who was armed with stones called out something about sucking up to the Prime Minister.
Paitomaleifi said when he walked past the intersection he saw Aiga on the seaward side of the intersection where many taulele’a gathered. Aiga called out words to the effect “put down your weapons and come and fight.” He also said something about “....malepe le ulu o le leoleo i le ma’a” (smashing a police officer’s head with a stone). Aiga was also observed by Constable Junior Afereti threatening Constable Setu Tuilaepa at the last stone wall. I prefer the police evidence regarding Aiga’s presence during the confrontation in the afternoon. I formed the view he was not a reliable witness during his evidence. The only question remaining therefore is whether or not he was party to and a willing participant in blocking the road. From the fact he with other unidentified taulele’a pushed the police back, the nature of the words he called out and the fact that he may have been armed satisfies me in concluding he was not only party to but also a willing participant in blocking the road on the day in question. I find him guilty of this charge.
Tagi Fifita:Sgt. Koroseta Uati, Constable(s) Maseiga Lauina and Tony Tevaga gave evidence against Fifita. Const. Tevaga saw him standing on a stone wall at the time the police were trying to clear the road. Lauina saw him at the first stone wall pushing the police shield carriers back and telling police officers not to remove the rocks from the road. Sgt. Uati said Fifita approached him and grabbed the barrel of his gun and told him not to fire it. Fifita admits touching the barrel of Sgt. Uati’s gun because he said it was pointed at him. He denes everything else.
I am satisfied from the evidence that Tagi Fifita was not only party to but also willingly by his conduct participated in blocking the road. I find him guilty as charged.
Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu:The evidence against Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu is, he was seen around seven in the morning by Constable(s) Saia Kerisiano and Tausisi Lavea. Both Constables were stationed at Faleolo Police station at the time of the incident. They were on their way to work that morning. They travelled to work on different buses. Both the buses they were in were stopped at the road block. That is where and when they said they saw Faleupolu.
There is no evidence Faleupolu was at the scene of the confrontation in the afternoon. I cannot find him guilty of this charge. The charge of unlawful assembly against him is accordingly dismissed.
Lasei Sione: The evidence against Lasei Sione is from Constable Repeka Vaavale. She was stationed at Faleolo in August 2012. She was in a pick-up truck with some of her police colleagues that morning on their way to shop at Leulumoega. They wore civilian clothes. The roadblock was already there when they went to the shop and their vehicle was not stopped. They were however stopped on their way back to the station. That is when she saw Lasei Sione in the company of Lua Aiga, Tagi Fifita and other men.
There is no evidence that Lasei Sione was present during the confrontation in the afternoon. He cannot therefore be said to have been a party to or participated in an event where there is no evidence he was even present. I do not find the charge of unlawful assembly against the defendant proven and is accordingly dismissed.
Lesisamoa Faga: The evidence against Lesisamoa Faga came from Sgt. Koroseta Uati. He said the road was no longer blocked at the time part of the police procession he was in reached the intersection. He said he saw the defendant on the side of the road at the intersection as he walked past. Sgt. Uati did not say he saw the defendant do anything other than just standing there. On the basis of this evidence I am not satisfied the defendant was a party to or a willing participant in blocking the road. He is found not guilty of the charge of unlawful assembly and the charge against him is accordingly dismissed.
Tomasi Ilioletutu: The evidence against Tomasi Ilioletutu came from Sgt. Misipele Fiatau who said he was in the motor vehicle right at the back of the police procession. He saw from where he was one stonewall at the intersection. He did not remove any rocks from the road implying the road was already cleared of rocks and people by the second team when he reached the location of the stonewall he saw. He saw police officers in the front of the procession at the intersection struggling against Muagututi’a and Vaili. The two men appeared to be siding with the villagers in the confrontation with the police. At the same time, he also saw Tomasi Ilioletutu near the intersection. The defendant was walking around under a breadfruit tree on the inland side of the road. He called out something but Sgt. Fiatau could not hear what was said. This evidence falls short of proving that the defendant in the circumstances when he was seen was a party to blocking the road or that he willingly participated in blocking the road. I am not satisfied of his guilt and find him not guilty.
Sani Ili:The defendant admits he was present at the scene of the confrontation. He said he was however just an interested bystander. He admits calling out during the confrontation “e ese le kou le mafaufau” when some police firearms were fired in the air. He denies having physically impeded or obstructed any police officer on the day in question. The police witnesses say otherwise.
Sgt. Keni Tuumatavai said he saw the defendant together with Toeolesulusulu, Muagututia and Vaili where the second team confronted the villagers. Constable Maseiga Lauina who was a shield carrier also recalled the defendant in the midst of the villagers on the road pushing back the shield carriers.
Counsel suggests the fact the police were heavily armed probably provoked the confrontation. That with respect is a matter of opinion. He further suggests the defendant could be wrongfully accused. No reason has been provided why the Court should consider untrue or unacceptable what the two officers said they saw. I accept and am satisfied from the evidence of both officers Tu’umatavai and Lauina that Sani Ili was not only party to blocking the road at the relevant time but also willingly participated in blocking the police path as they cleared the road. I find him guilty of the charge of unlawful assembly.
Samuelu Lagalaga:I accept Constable Tony Tevaga’s evidence he saw Samuelu Lagalaga. He called out “leoleo aua le fia ulavavale.” According to Lagalaga he was at his plantation to get food when he heard gunshots. He came down to enquire. By the time he had reached the intersection the confrontation between his fellow villagers and the police was finished. But the police contingent of motor vehicles was still slowly passing through the intersection. He looked towards the back of the police procession and saw Constable Tevaga. They knew each other from rugby. He took Tevaga’s picture with his cellphone. He denies calling out to the police. Even if he called out to Const Tevaga the evidence still falls short on this charge.
I am not satisfied that Lagalaga was in the circumstances a party to the common purpose or a willing participant in blocking the road. I find him not guilty of the charge of unlawful assembly.
Amosa Maini:Amosa Maini is a mechanic by trade. He lives in Satapuala. He said he was working at Fasitoo-tai at the time of the confrontation. He admits going that same afternoon to Satapuala but only to test drive a dyna truck he was working on. He drove there around 3.00pm and arrived when the confrontation was over and the road cleared for normal trafffic. He denies he was there at the time of the confrontation. The evidence against him comes from two police officers.
Sgt. Koroseta Uati said he did not see any rocks on the road by the time he reached the intersection. He however said he saw the defendant at the confrontation. He did not say what the defendant was doing when he saw him.
Maini was also seen by Constable Tausisi Lavea who said he saw the defendant driving a red Dyna truck at one of the police check points set up near the airport. He did not see the defendant at the confrontation. Const. Lavea corroborates the defendant’s evidence about the time he was at Satapuala in the afternoon. The evidence in totality raises a reasonable doubt whether this defendant was even present at or during the confrontation. I find him not guilty of this charge and the charge against him is dismissed.
Toese Punavai:The evidence of Sgt Uati is also the only evidence against Toese Punavai. He also saw her at the intersection. Punavai lives at Satapuala west of the intersection going towards the airport. She came with her children towards the main village around 3.00pm to pick breadfruit. Before coming to the village, she said she heard gun shots. They met the police procession on their way to the village before they reached the intersection. She waved at Sgt. Uati who she said waved back at her. By the time she reached the intersection, there were no longer any people or rocks blocking the road. I accept her evidence. She was not present at the intersection at the time the second team were clearing the road. Even if I am wrong, there is nothing in Sgt. Uati’s evidence to suggest Punavai was party to blocking the road or willingly participated in doing that. I find her not guilty and the charge against her is accordingly dismissed.

Resisting the Police and/or use of Threatening or Insulting Words.

Defense counsels Enari and Masepa’u in their closing submissions argued that the charges of resisting or willfully obstructing police officers not identified in the charges should be dismissed on the basis the particulars are insufficient. Alternatively, the officer(s) who were allegedly obstructed should have been but weren’t named in the charges.
This is a procedural matter. I raised it with the prosecution at the preliminary stages of the trial before the evidence was called. Neither counsel for the defendants considered the issue then as being worthy enough to seek further and better particulars. More significantly, neither defense counsel sought leave requiring the prosecution to either voluntarily provide further and better particulars in the wording of the appropriate charges or by way of a Court order. In addition the wording of most charges under this class follow literally the wording in the statutory provisions without specifying the gender of the police officer or officers obstructed.
Effectively therefore, the trial proceeded without requiring any amendments or refinements to any charge. For defense counsels to therefore raise at the end of the evidence the particular charges being inadequately worded or defective as a ground for their dismissal is in my view procedurally too late.
Therefore, so long as the Court is satisfied that a defendant resisted a police officer as he or she was trying to clear the road then the Court is entitled to find that particular defendant guilty. This is so, even if the police officers obstructed are neither identified by name nor specified by their gender in the wording of the charge.

Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster

Information D4686/12 accuses the defendant of threatening a constable by words or actions with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his duties. Alternatively he used threatening words “Fa’akali, faakali sei vala’au aku kama ia poo le a le iuga o oukou” whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned Information - D4245/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Parnell Pao in these charges. Constable Pao heard the defendant call out the words in the charge. The defendant denies having said them. There is no evidence that Constable Pao made up this part of his evidence. The prosecution submits the contextual meaning of the words and the circumstances in which they were uttered shows that Toeolesulusulu intended to intimidate a police officer (in this instance Constable Pao) as he and other officers tried to clear the road. I agree.
There is no doubt in my mind the words were aimed at scaring or putting off Constable Pao and other police officers present with him from doing what they were doing. I find the charge against the defendant of resisting a police constable in the execution of his duties, in this case Constable Pao proved, but dismiss the alternative charge of threatening words - D4245/12.
Information D4685/12 accuses the defendant of threatening a constable by words or actions with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his duties. In the alternative he is charged for using insulting words namely “e faapega o ga fai gi mea kou kefe, ufa leoleo” whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned - Info D4246/12.
The prosecution relies on the evidence of former Constable Silolo Mafutaga who said the villagers were angry and clashed with the police when the police tried to clear the first stone wall. The physical battle he said lasted about twenty minutes. During the confrontation the villagers swore and threw stones at the police while also resisting them. He said he saw Toeolesulusulu amongst the villagers wrestling with the police. He further said that as police officers moved rocks to the side of the road Toeolesulusulu yelled at them “e faapega o ga fai gi mea kou kefe, ufa leoleo”. The defendant denies saying such words. There is no evidence that Mafutaga made up this part of his evidence or any good reason for me to question the truthfulness of his evidence.
The prosecution submits that in the circumstances the defendant by the words “e faapega o ga fai gi mea kou kefe, ufa leoleo” showed he intended to intimidate and threaten the police in the execution of their duties. In my view the words are clearly insulting and may have occasioned a breach of the peace. I find the charge D4246/12 of using insulting words proven.
I am however not completely satisfied that the words which were in my view actually uttered in the form of a question were aimed at scaring any of the police officers including Mafutaga himself from clearing the road. I do not consider the defendant guilty of having an intention to intimidate a police officer by asking a question despite his choice of words. The charge of resisting a police constable against him (D4685/12) is dismissed.
Information - D4683/12 accuses the defendant of threatening a constable by words or actions with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his duties. Alternatively, he is charged for using threatening, abusive and insulting words with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned - Information D4276/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Ma’anaima Patu in proving the two charges.
Constable Patu said he recognised Toeolesulusulu during the confrontation at the first stone wall. He said that while the police were trying to move the rocks to the side of the road Toeolesulusulu accosted the police and pushed them back. He saw Toeolesulusulu standing on the stone wall as he called out to the police “Faatali, e sili ona taofi se’i fai se tala” (Wait, it is better to stop and talk).
The prosecution submits the words “Faatali, e sili ona taofi se’i fai se tala” shows the defendant intended to obstruct the police from removing the stone wall. They further submit that the charge of using threatening words has also been proven.
I do not agree. The words were made in the context of a plea to stop the violence from continuing. In my view the words in the circumstances were neither meant to intimidate a police officer nor aimed at threatening, abusing or insulting anyone. Nor should they be seen as aimed at provoking a breach of the peace. I do not find the defendant guilty of the charges in Info.D4683/12 and Info.D4276/12. They are both dismissed.
Information D4681/12 accuses the defendant of inciting or encouraging a person to resist assault or obstruct a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of any such constable.
There is no alternative charge. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Tamaseu in this charge. He was part of the second team of police officers assigned to remove the stone walls.
He said that while the police tried to remove the first stone wall the area was crowded with Satapualans. While trying to remove the rocks from the road Constable Tamaseu saw Toeolesulusulu amongst the villagers accosting the police. He also called out to the police “Faakali, aua le la’ua ma’a” (Wait, don’t remove the stones).
The prosecution submits that the words “Faakali, aua le la’ua ma’a” shows the defendant had a clear intention to interfere with the police in the execution of their duties or to deter the police from removing the stone wall.
I agree with the submission in that the defendant’s intention to incite a person is drawn from the words but not with the application of the words and their meanings to the specific charge as laid. The words themselves could in their literal meaning be seen as obstructing the police. They were clearly meant for the police, not the villagers. But there is no evidence the words incited or encouraged a villager to resist or assault or obstruct a constable or any person acting in aid of any such constable. There is a doubt in my mind whether at that very moment the villagers in resisting the police acted of their own free will or as a direct result of the defendant’s words. I am not satisfied of the defendant’s guilt in this charge relative to the evidence in support of it. Information - D4681/12 is consequently dismissed.
Information D4682/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or willfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of such constable. There is no alternative charge. The prosecution relies on the evidence of both Constable Junior Afereti and Corporal Kalati Tusani.
Constable Afereti said he witnessed many villagers crowding at the first stone wall. They threw stones and lighted kerosene bottles at the police. They swore at and threatened the police. He also heard gunshots coming from inland side of the village during the struggle. He recognised a number of matai. Among them were Vaili Mimita and Toeolesulusulu. He saw Vaili call out to the police “O, o loga uiga o le mea le ga o loo magagao i ai leoleo, ia o gei lava e liu efuefu ai le malae vaalele ma le ofisa o leoleo”. At the same time he also saw Toeolesulusulu on top of the stone wall at the time it became quite difficult for the second team to progress forward. The villagers continued to throw stones some hitting police shields. It was also around felt scared at the time he had to be strong as a police officer in carrying out his duty of clearing the road. It was at the second or last stone wall that he said he saw some of the villagers help remove the rocks from the road.
Corporal Kalati Tusani basically said the same. He also saw Toeolesulusulu standing with other villagers in front of the first stone wall. At times, he was standing on top of the stone wall and the villagers behind him. During this time the villagers strongly opposed the police by pushing them back. Others threw stones and bottles at the police. He heard gunshots in the background. There is general evidence both Vaili and Toeolesulusulu encouraged other villagers to resist the police from clearing the road. Despite the denials there is no evidence either Constable Afereti or Corporal Tusani made up what they said they saw and heard. The prosecution submits that in the circumstances of what happened at the first stone wall Vaili and Toeolesulusulu by words or actions willfully obstructed police officers during the struggle. I agree.
The evidence of both Constables Afereti and Tusani sufficiently shows what both defendants did and said and I have no difficulty in finding and do so find Toeolesulusulu guilty of the charge of resisting the police Information - D4682/12 and similarly Vaili for resisting the police Informatiom - D4673/12.

Muagututia Akeripa To’alepaialii:

Information D4239/12 accuses the defendant of willfully obstructing Constable Turo Tamaseu while in the execution of his duties. Information D4647/12 also accuses the defendant of inciting or encouraging a person to resist assault or obstruct a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of such constable. He is charged in the alternative of using threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of the peace - Information D4646/12. The prosecution relies on the first and the alternative charges on the evidence of Constable Turo Tamaseu and on the evidence of Constable Setu Tuilaepa in proving the second charge.
Constable Tamaseu said he saw Muagututi’a Akeripa together with Faamau and Toeolesulusulu amongst other villagers at the first stonewall. While the police were removing the rocks at that wall Muagututi’a accosted the police. He pushed them, including Constable Tamaseu back. At the same time he told the police officers “to leave the stone wall alone”. The defendant denies both accusations
Constable Setu Tuilaepa said he was with part of the frontline. They were met by a group of four or five men which included Muagututi’a Akeripa near the boundary of Faleatiu and Satapuala. When the frontline leaders came face to face with the men, they told the police to turn back. The police did not turn back. Instead they continued walking past the men towards the first stonewall. When they reached the first stonewall Tuilaepa said he again saw Muagututi’a there. When the second team arrived they started to remove the rocks from it. According to Tuilaepa Muagututi’a and the other men he was with pushed them back telling them to leave the stone wall alone.
The defendant denies obstructing any police officer that day at the first stonewall. There is no evidence either Constable Tamaseu or Constable Tuilaepa made up part of their evidence about what they said the defendant did and said at the first stonewall. I have no reason to doubt the two police officers account of what they said the defendant did and said.
The prosecution submits that Muagututi’a’s action of confronting the police officers and the words he said during the confrontation with police amounts, in law, to wilful obstruction of police officers in the execution of their duties. That is, telling the police to leave the stone wall alone shows he had no intention of allowing the police to clear the road peaceably. I agree.
I find the defendant guilty of the charge of wilfully obstructing Constable Turo Tamaseu as he tried with others to clear the road, Information - D4239/12. However, I dismiss the charge in Information D4647/12 of resisting being in my view a duplication of Information D4239/12 for which the defendant has now been found guilty.
Having found the principal charge D4239/12 against the defendant proven, the charge filed in the alternative against the defendant of threatening words D4646/12 is also dismissed
Information D4649/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or willfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duties or a person acting in aid of such constable. On this charge the prosecution relies on the evidence of Sergeant Faalogo Kapeli Faalogo who had custody of the loud speaker used by police to communicate with the villagers. Sergeant Faalogo confirmed what Superintendent Misa Talaimanu Keti said that the frontline officers cleared without much difficulty a line of rocks they came across on the road past the boundary of Faleatiu and Satapuala. After that, they proceeded toward the first stonewall at the intersection. Before they reached the first stonewall, they were met by Vaili, Leao (Muagututi’a) and Faamau. Leao and Vaili apparently tried to stop them from going further. It did not stop them. There is no evidence the police considered arresting either Muagututi’a or Vaili at the time for obstruction or any other offence when they met on the road and before they reached the intersection. As a result I will treat the defendant’s conduct under this charge as obstruction of a police constable at the first stone wall at the intersection. Leao was one of the men Sergeant Faalogo said he saw stopping the police officers from clearing the first stonewall.
The prosecution submits that Muagututi’a’s actions of physically stopping the police while trying to clear the first stonewall and telling the police to leave the stone wall alone showed an intention to interfere with the police in the execution of their duties. The defendant’s conduct which the prosecution accuses him of resisting a police officer in this charge is in my opinion, the same conduct of resisting a police officer he has been found guilty of in Information - D4239/12 which I have already discussed above. It seems to me that the defendant has been charged more than once for resisting unnamed police officers at the first stone wall for the same conduct, the number of charges depending on the number of different police officers who claimed to have seen the same conduct by the defendant. I consider this charge a duplicate of Information D4239/12, similar to Information D4647/12 I have already dealt with above. Like Information D4647/12, I see no reason why Information D4649/12 here should be treated any differently. It is essentially a duplication of the same conduct for which the defendant has already been charged and found guilty of. Appropriately therefore Information D4649/12 is dismissed.
Information D4650/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or willfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duties or a person acting in aid of such constable. The prosecution relies in this charge on the evidence of Sergeant Misipele Fiatau. Sergeant Fiatau said he was an occupant of the last vehicle in the procession of police motor vehicles which means when the vehicle he was in reached the intersection both stonewalls had already been cleared by those officers who were in front and on foot. He did not name a particular police constable the defendant obstructed. He was not personally involved in the physical confrontation with the villagers. He said he saw Leao standing at the intersection in the middle of the road with other villagers. They were resisting police by preventing them from removing the rocks from the road.
The prosecution says that in the context and circumstances of what was occurring from the time police arrived to removing the stone walls, Muagututi’a through his actions contributed in resisting and obstructing the police in the execution of their duties. His actions of physically resisting the police in the course of their duties and telling the police to leave the stone wall alone shows his intention to interfere with the police from removing stones from not only the first, but also the second stone wall.
I am not completely sure that Sgt. Fiatau’s evidence of what he said the defendant was doing at the intersection was really an accurate account of what he actually saw or heard. I say that because he was located at and observed the defendant’s conduct from the back of the police procession of motor vehicles. The procession of vehicles according to several witnesses was quite long because the police hired buses and trucks to transport the contingent from Apia to Satapuala. Furthermore, the procession stopped briefly at Leulumoega so a hauling truck with an excavator can join. Sgt. Fiatau’s reiteration of the defendant’s conduct he claimed he saw at the intersection is almost if not identical to the accounts of the conduct of the same defendant at the intersection given by other police officers who were at the front of the procession; who were on foot and bore the brunt of the confrontation with the villagers. As well, there is abundant evidence which supports the view the procession of motor vehicles did not actually begin to move until all the stonewalls had been cleared by those on foot. Even if I am wrong in this view, there is still no evidence that the conduct of the defendant under this charge is different from the conduct referred to in Information D4239/12, the charge of this very moment Constable Joyce and Officer Ieti Fiu were hit and injured by stones. He said although he resisting a police officer in which he has been found guilty. For the reasons given this charge is I consider again a duplicate charge and is therefore accordingly dismissed.
Information D4652/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or willfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duties or a person acting in aid of such constable.
The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Tavita Tunupopo. He said he saw Leao Akeripa amongst the villagers who gathered to resist the police at the first stonewall. He also further said he saw the accused Leao Akeripa and Toeolesulusulu standing in front of the first stone wall leading the village and provoking them to resist the police. They appeared angry and were yelling at police to move back and leave the stone wall alone. The villagers were during this time using sticks to strike at the police shields and throwing rocks at the police. How Leao led and/or provoked the villagers to resist the police is neither apparent nor described.
The prosecution say that in the circumstances, Muagututi’a through actions contributed in resisting and obstructing the police in the execution of their duties. His actions of physically resisting the police in the course of their duties and telling the police to leave the stone wall alone shows his intention to interfere with the police from removing stones not only at the first but also the second stone wall. He incited and encouraged the villagers to resist the police in the execution of their duties.
Like the previous charge against the defendant there is again neither evidence nor anything helpful in the submission by the prosecution to assist the Court in determining whether the defendant’s conduct which amounts to obstruction of a constable under this charge is different from or is the same conduct for which he has already been found guilty of for obstructing a constable. There is no evidence to satisfy the Court that the defendant either by words or by action personally obstructed Constable Tavita Tunupopo. Nor does Constable Tunupopo identify any other constable he saw the defendant obstruct. As a result, I am not satisfied the charge against the defendant has been proven to the required standard. He is found not guilty and the charge is dismissed.

Vaili Mimita

Information 4248/12 accuses the defendant of wilfully obstructing Palea Setu Tuilaepa while in the execution of his duty. Alternatively, he is charged with wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duties or a person acting in aid of such constable - D4654/12. For these charges the prosecution rely on the evidence of Constable Tuilaepa both at the meeting with the four men after the frontline leaders passed the boundary of Faleatiu and Satapuala, and when Vaili was again seen at the first stonewall. For the same reason that I did not attribute any guilty intent to Muagututi’a to obstruct any of the frontline leaders when they met before the police reached the first stonewall, I similarly find that Vaili did not intend to obstruct any constable when he met with the frontline leaders. He said they went to ask the leaders of the contingent to discuss matters in the customary way (fale). Whether their request was made at the right or wrong time is not the issue. I do however accept the reason of why they did what they did. I do not find the defendant guilty of the charge info.D4248/12 of resisting. He lacked the necessary mens rea.
At the first stonewall at the intersection Constable Tuilaepa said he saw Vaili in the company of the same matai he saw earlier. He was seen physically confronting most likely members of the second team. He was also seen by Constable Tuilaepa pushing the police officers back and telling them to leave the stone wall alone. For this charge, the prosecution submits that Vaili Mimita resisted and obstructed the police officers who were trying to clear the road.
I am satisfied by the evidence the defendant was seen wilfully obstructing unnamed police officers at the first stonewall as they tried to remove the rocks blocking the road. I find him guilty of the charge of obstruction of a police officer (Info D4654/12)
Information - D4673/12 accuses the defendant of inciting or encouraging a person to resist assault or obstruct a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of such constable. In the alternative he is similarly charged that by words or actions he threatened a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duties Information - D4661/12. He is also further charged but in the alternative of using threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4667/12.
The key witness on whom the prosecution relies in all three charges is Constable Junior Afereti whose evidence was that the Satapualans crowded around the first wall waiting for the police to reach it. The villagers threw rocks at the second police team, swore, threatened and pushed the police back. As the police struggled to remove rocks at the first stone wall Constable Afereti saw Vaili amongst the many villagers who blocked the police path. Vaili called out “O, o lo ga uiga o le mea le ga o loo magagao ai leoleo, ia o gei lava e liu efuefu ai le male vaalele ma le ofisa o leoleo”. The prosecution submits that in the circumstances of what was happening at the first stone Vaili through the words he spoke during the confrontation showed that he objected to the removal of the road blocks.
There is little doubt the defendant by the words he chose clearly intended to incite and encourage other villagers present at the first stonewall to resist the progress of the police in clearing the road. I find him guilty of the principal charge of resisting the police in Information D4673/12. In consequence the alternative charge of resisting a police officer Information D4661/12 and the charge of threatening words in Information D4667/12 are both dismissed.
Information D4674/12 accuses the defendant of inciting or encouraging a person to resist assault or obstruct a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of any constable. There is no alternative charge. The witness the prosecution relies on in this charge is Constable Sefulu Sefulu.
His evidence which is relevant to this charge relates to what he heard at the first stonewall. In the heat of the struggle between the two sides Constable Sefulu said he heard Vaili with an angry look on his face call out to his fellow Satapualans “Satapuala, ga o mai e faakali leoleo a o lea ua leai gisi” (Satapuala, we came to wait for the police but now there is no one).
The prosecution submits that in the circumstances of what was happening at the first stonewall, Vaili again, from the words he spoke showed an intention to incite or encourage his village folk to keep on holding off the police from clearing the road. The interpretation given to these words in the prosecution’s written submissions is “they will not be defeated”. Such a meaning can arguably incite or encourage other villagers who heard it to keep on standing up against the police. However that is not the meaning the Court puts on the words. I take the view the words as I have translated them reflected the mind of a person who was more frustrated at the diminishing numbers of the village folk at the scene. Alternatively, a most disappointed and beaten village tu’ua who despite the number of the village folk present at the first stonewall remaining the same as in the beginning saw signs of the confrontation turning into certain defeat for the villagers at the hands of a determined police team.
The issue is whether or not the words did in fact incite or encourage other villagers to stand firm against the police officers. The evidence is clear that the longest and the most difficult stone wall for the police to clear was the one on the Apia side of the intersection. The very one where Vaili called out the particular words. I am not able to agree with the prosecution’s view that the words even if capable of the interpretation given them by the prosecution was intended to incite other villagers. A reasonable man hearing the words in the circumstances may refuse to blindly join the confrontation. He or she may in my view consider his personal safety first before deciding whether to join the village cause of blocking the road or abstain from joining. I am not convinced by the evidence the words when uttered by the defendant incited or encouraged other persons in the village be they reasonable or unreasonable, to fight or obstruct the police for a cause which was clearly unlawful. Accordingly I do not find this charge proven and it follows the defendant is found not guilty of the charge.
Information D4675/12 accuses the defendant of inciting or encouraging a person to resist assault or obstruct a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of any constable. The prosecution relies in this charge on the evidence of Constable Lokeni Su’a. The relevant part of his evidence in relation to this charge is what he heard at the first stone wall during the confrontation with the villagers He said he saw Vaili Mimita stand on the first stonewall prior to it being dismantled by the police. He called out to the villagers “Tatou nu’u Satapuala, tatou nuu e le faia’iga” (Our village Satapuala, our village does not lose). Constable Su’a also heard other obscenities hurled at the police by women folk in the village but they are not relevant to this discussion.
The prosecution submits that in the circumstances Vaili’s act of standing on the stone wall and yelling to the villagers that they will not be defeated provoked the villagers further in standing up to the police. He incited and encouraged other villagers who heard him to keep resisting the police efforts of clearing the road. I agree. The very impact of the words on those of the village who joined the cause to block the road that afternoon was to encourage other villagers to do whatever was needed to ensure the police mission of clearing the road would not succeed. I find the charge proven and accordingly find Vaili Mimita guilty of this charge.
Information D4656/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting aid of such constable. Alternatively, he is also charged with using threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned - Information D4668/12. The prosecution in these charges relies on the evidence of Constable Tivoli Paga.
At the first stonewall Constable Paga said he saw Vaili in the midst of where the villagers crowded. He was pushing the police officers back. Constable Paga said he was trying to remove rocks from the stone wall. Somehow he pushed Vaili at the stone wall. Vaili in turn called out (presumably at Constable Paga) “Kefe, komo, ufa, faakali la kou ufa”. Shocked as he was at the defendant’s choice of words, Constable Paga bravely persevered on despite the life threatening circumstances surrounding him and his other colleagues in the second team that afternoon.
The prosecution submits Vaili by the words he used resisted and interfered with the police. The words he used showed a clear intention to resist and obstruct the police in the execution of their duties. I see differently. I have little difficulty in finding the defendant guilty of the charge of using threatening and insulting words. Somehow I got the clear impression from Constable Paga that the feeling he felt at the time was more a feeling of being insulted or offended by the defendant rather than a feeling of being resisted or obstructed. I find him not guilty of the resisting charge - Information D4656/12. He is however found guilty of the insulting words charge - Information D4668/1.
Information - D4664/12 accuses the defendant that by words or actions threatened a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duty. He is also charged in the alternative in that he used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned - Information D4670/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Kosema Mikaele in these charges.
The relevant part of his evidence to these charges relates to the meeting the leaders of the police frontline had with the defendant and three other men of the village on the road. He said that when the police met the matai, Vaili called out “O ese ma le fanua” (go away from the land).
The prosecution submits that in the context and circumstances of what was occurring at the first stone wall, Vaili through his words resisted and interfered with the police. The words they say show a clear intention by the accused to resist and obstruct the police in the execution of their duties.
I cannot agree with the prosecution’s interpretation of the events and the meaning and impact of the words. First, the offence is alleged to have happened not long after the frontline had cleared the line of rocks they first came across on the road. Once they cleared it the leading pack of Sgt Faalogo with the loud speaker, the overall leader Supt. Misa Talaimanu Keti and a couple of other senior officers walked towards Satapuala where they were met by the matai. Supt. Keti’s recollection was the matai wanted to talk. His response was to clear the stone walls first then talk. Secondly, Constable Mikaele said Vaili told them to leave the land. He however went further to say it was Vaili’s land they were on, but they kept on doing what they went there to do. If the land was in fact Vaili’s, the defendant should under the charges under consideration get the benefit of the doubt. If he is the land owner as Constable Mikaele’s evidence confirms then he was quite entitled to tell any trespassers on it to leave be they police officers or not. I do not accept the proposal that Vaili in the circumstances said what he said to the police officers with an intention to either resist the police frontline or to threaten any officer on the land. The evidence proffered as proof of these two charges falls short of the required standard and both the charges are accordingly dismissed.
Information - D4665/12 accuses the defendant that by word or actions threatened a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duties. Alternatively, he is also charged with using threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4671/12. The witness the prosecution relies on is Sergeant Faalogo Kapeli Faalogo.
Part of his evidence relevant to the charges is a comment by Vaili presumably to Sergeant Faalogo (because no other police officer present at the scene seems to have heard it) when they met the matai before reaching the intersection. What Vaili was apparently heard saying and heard by Sergeant Faalogo was “taofi” (stop).
The prosecution urges that what the defendant meant when he said “taofi” was to stop or halt the frontline officers leading the police contingent from reaching the first stonewall at the intersection. I prefer the version in the evidence of Misa Talaimanu. His focus was to clear the road, then talk, instead of the reverse. That is why he refused the request by the four matai to talk. He was not intimidated. He was more frustrated at the matai of Satapuala. He forceably walked past the four men on the road and proceeded to the first stonewall at the intersection dishing out instructions to his men. He did not hear Vaili say “stop”. Even if he did, there is nothing in his evidence to suggest he cared or bothered about it. If the defendant said stop as a preamble to seeking an opportunity from the police to talk his intention was not to threaten the police intending to intimidate them but for a chance to talk. The defendant said (corroborated by the police leader Supt. Keti) he asked the frontline leaders to talk. His request was declined. Declining the defendant’s request to talk does not suddenly change his intention from seeking a last minute chance to talk to intimidation of the police officers he was talking with. The evidence is short of convincing the Court that the defendant when he said “taofi” intended to threaten or intimidate the frontline leaders on the road. I cannot honestly convict the defendant on the strength of the evidence produced in support of these charges.
1. I do not find him guilty of the charge of resisting a police officer. Neither am I satisfied by the evidence offered that the word the defendant is said to have spoken was threatening, abusive or insulting. Both the charges are not proven and are dismissed accordingly.
Information - D4660/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting aid of such constable. He is also charged in the alternative for using insulting words namely, “kefe, pukio, kefe o ese e leai se feau a leoleo ile mea lea o mea a le Malo,” whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned - Information D4247/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Pano Paulo in these charges. His evidence was he saw Vaili amongst the villagers when he reached the first stonewall. Vaili was himself strongly resisting the police shield carriers. He was punching at the shields and swearing at the police officers trying to clear the road. Constable Paulo said he witnessed Vaili swearing at the police saying. He heard him say “ufa, komo, kefe, puki’o, e leai se kou feau ga’o le palemia e fia vaai iai.” Constable Paulo also said he saw a man push Setu and they wrestled. He was going over to arrest the man when stones started to rain on them. He heard gun shots and that is why the man he was going to arrest got away. He later found out the identity of that man as Vaili Mimita.
I am satisfied from the evidence of the sole witness that Vaili wilfully obstructed a police officer (Setu Tuilaepa) while he was trying to clear the road. The minor differences in the insulting words in the charge and Constable Paulo’s evidence are insignificant in determining guilt but since the principal charge of resisting has been proved against the defendant, it is appropriate that the alternative charge of insulting words be dismissed. Information D4247/12 is dismissed.

Ga Sakalia aka Faaleafaga Sakalia

Information - D4627/12 accuses the defendant that by word or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her study. Alternatively, he is also charged for using insulting words namely “kefe, aikae, o ese ma le auala e leai se kou feau kou ke omai ai fua iigei,” whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned - Information - D4233/12. For these charges the prosecution relies on the evidence of Corporal Timoteo Ufagalilo. He said he met Vaili Mimita and saw Ga Sakaria at the last stone wall. While the police were trying to remove the last stone wall he saw the accused Ga Sakalia resisting the police. He heard him call out “kefe, aikae, o ese e leai se kou feau”.
The prosecution submits that the words the defendant used showed an intention by him to resist and obstruct the police in the execution of their duties.
There is no reason why the evidence of Corporal Ufagalilo should be questioned. I accept the submission by the prosecution and find that the defendant by his words and conduct is guilty of resisting police officers in the execution of their duties.
Information - D4625/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting aid of such constable. He is also charged in the alternative that by word or actions did use threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned, Information - D4630/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Kalati Tusani in these charges. He said he saw Ga Sakalia that at the first stone wall just before the intersection. He was amongst the villagers who were physically resisting the police as they tried to clear the road. Again, absent of any reason why the witness should not be considered as reliable and his evidence believable, I accept that the defendant was seen in the midst of the confrontation at the first stone wall doing what the witness said he was doing, which was to stop the police from doing the job they went there to do.
I find him guilty of the principal charge of resisting the police Information - D4625/12 and as a consequence dismiss the alternative charge information - D4630/12.

Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga

Information - D4234/12 accuses the defendant of obstructing Sergeant Faalogo Kapeli in the execution of his duty. He is also charged in the alternative that by words or actions used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4635/12. For these charges the prosecution relies on the evidence of Sergeant Faalogo Kapeli Faalogo. The relevant part of his evidence relative to the charges is when they met Vaili, Leao, Faamau and another man before the police teams reached the intersection. Sergeant Faalogo said he used the loudspeaker to inform the villagers to clear the road. As he was doing this Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga forcibly grabbed his loudspeaker. The defendant then also tried to assault him but Sergeant Faalogo did not elaborate how. The defendant also turned to him and said something to the effect “shut your mouth, don’t let it rip up again”. The prosecution submits that the context and in the circumstances of what happened and what was said Iliolemalae Faamau by words and actions obstructed Sergeant Faalogo while in the execution of his duties. I have little hesitation in finding on the facts that Iliolemalae Seifaamau willfully obstructed Sergeant Faalogo when he forcibly grabbed the loudspeaker the officer was using. He is found guilty of the principal charge, Information - D4234/12. It then follows the alternative charge even though proven is dismissed.
Information - D4633/12 accuses the defendant that by words or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duties. He is also charged in the alternative that by words or actions used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4637/12. The prosecution in these charges relies on the evidence of Constable Ma’anaima Patu. He said that when the police group he was in arrived at the intersection to clear, the first stonewall the area was already crowded with Satapualans. The fiercest confrontation between police and the villagers took place at this stonewall. He saw Toeolesulusulu, Leao Akeripa and Iliolemalae Faamau amidst the villagers at the stone wall. Constable Patu said he heard Iliolemalae Faamau say “kefe, pau a lega o mea kou ke fifiki ai o faga” The prosecution submits that the words, “kefe, pau a lega o mea kou ke fifiki ai o faga” show a clear intention by the accused to intimidate or provoke the police officers who heard him while trying to remove the stone wall.
While the argument sounds inviting I am not convinced the defendant is guilty of obstructing a police officer when he said what he said. It was a challenge in the form of taunting the police and at best comes under abusive and insulting words. I find the defendant not guilty of the principal charge of resisting the police Information - D4633/12, but find him guilty of the alternative charge of insulting words, D4637/12.
Information - D4631/12 accuses the defendant of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his or her duty or a person acting in aid of such constable. He is also charged in the alternative that by his words or actions used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4637/12. The prosecution under these charges relies on the evidence of Constable Turo Tamaseu. He said he saw Faamau at the first stonewall with Leao Akeripa and Toeolesulusulu. They were amongst the villagers who resisted the police. Faamau’s actions toward the police was to resist them as they tried to remove the stone wall. Furthermore, Constable Tamaseu did not see Faamau do anything to bring about peace to the villagers who resisted the police at the time. Instead, Faamau contributed in pushing the police back.The prosecution says the defendant resisted the police as they tried to clear the road, but not how he did that. The only mention of any obstructive movements in the evidence is the defendant pushing the police back. In the absence of any evidence to refute Constable Tamaseu’s account of what he experienced and saw, his evidence is in my view enough to satisfy the Court the defendant wilfully obstructed police officers at the first stonewall.
I find the defendant guilty of the principal charge of resisting police Information - D4631/12, but dismiss the alternative charge of threatening words Information - D4637/12.

Lua Aiga.

Information - D4642/12 accuses the defendant that by word or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her study. He is also charged in the alternative that by word or actions did use threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4638/12. The prosecution relies on the evidence of Constable Junior Afereti in these charges. At the first stone wall, one of the villagers Constable Afereti said he recognised (amongst other villagers) during the heated confrontation, was Lua Aiga. As the police tried to remove the stonewall Aiga was one of the many Satapualans who obstructed the police and preventing them from clearing the road. Constable Afereti further said while the police were trying to remove the stone wall Aiga spoke towards towards the police “Koeikiki ou alu aku ko i fafo lou fa’ai, e le fefe gisi i gi kou faga, e fai foi makou faga”
The prosecution submits that the movements of, and the words spoken by the defendant clearly shows his state of mind as he spoke the words. Whether he can in reality do what he said he might do is hardly the issue. What is clear in the Court’s view is the defendant is not a reliable informant in view of his denial on oath that he was not present in the afternoon confrontation in the face of several accounts by people who know him seeing him at the intersection in the afternoon. I am satisfied from the evidence that the reason for the defendant saying what he said was clearly to intimidate the police officers who heard him. He is guilty of the principal charge of resisting the police Information D4642/12. The alternative charge of threatening words Information - D4638/12 is dismissed.
Information - D4643/12 accuses the defendant that by words or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her study. He is charged in the alternative that by word or actions used threatening, abusive and insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of peace or whereby a breach of the peace maybe occasioned Information - D4639/12. The prosecution in proving these charges relies on the evidence of Constable Lome Lome. Constable Lome was a shield carrier. He said villagers struck their shields with sticks and pieces of wood. During this most dangerous and difficult time at the first stonewall he said he saw Lua. He was one of the many villagers obstructing the police as they struggled to work their way to the first stonewall. Constable Lome also heard Aiga say “aua le susu i le palemia, ma va’ai se leoleo i pu le ulu i le ‘ala”. He said he was armed with stones as he spoke. The evidence is quite sufficient to show that the defendant physically obstructed the police officers as they were about their work making the work of clearing the road more difficult than was necessary. The evidence is equally sufficient the words the defendant spoke were clearly aimed at scaring the police officers who heard him. I find him guilty of the principal charge of resisting the police D4643/12, and again as a result of this finding dismiss the alternative charge of threatening words D4639/12.
Information - D4644/12 accuses the defendant that by words or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duty. The prosecution rely in this charge on the evidence of Constable Karl Chadwick. He said he recognised the defendant as the man who used to work at the airport. He saw him at the first stonewall amongst the villagers who he said clashed with the police as they tried to clear the stone wall. The defendant was definitely one of the villagers who obstructed or went against the police. As Constable Chadwick was trying to remove the rocks form the stonewall he heard Aiga say to him “puki’o, aua kou ke fia popoko.”
The prosecution submits that the actions and the words lead to the same conclusion. The defendant did obstruct and also swore at Constable Chadwick. Whilst I am satisfied the principal charge of resisting has been satisfactorily proven, there is no evidence to show that the defendants conduct for which he has already been found guilty in other earlier charges are any different from his conduct under this charge. I give him the benefit of the doubt in this charge and find him not guilty.There is no alternative charge of insulting words.
Information - D4645/12 accuses the defendant that by word or actions did threaten a constable with intent to intimidate him in the execution of his or her duty. The prosecution in this charge relies on the evidence of Constable Tony Tevaga. He like the other witnesses in the other charges against Aiga also saw him at the first stonewall. He saw a lot of police shields get hit with sticks and other objects. He also saw stones thrown at the police officers who were trying to clear the stone wall. That was the time he saw the defendant Lua Aiga and his brother Tagi Fifita. Constable Tevaga saw them standing on the first stone wall pushing the police back as the police tried to grab rocks from the stone wall.
The evidence satisfies me that the obstruction alleged in this charge was while the defendant and his brother were on the stonewall pushing the police back. The charge is proven and I find him guilty of it.
Information – D4236/12 accuses the defendant of using threatening words namely, “Ku’u i lalo kou faga, ae omai kakou fufusu, kusa a pe kou ke omai ma kou faga e malepe a le ulu ole leoleo ile maa,” whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. The prosecution relies on this charge on the evidence of Constable Solialii Paitomaleifi. He said Lua was amongst the villagers who he could see were resisting the police at the first stonewall from clearing the road. When he reached the intersection, Constable Paitomaleifi said he saw Aiga. Aiga said to him “Ku’u i lalo kou faga ae o mai kakou fufusu, kusa a pe kou ke o mai ma kou faga, e malepe a le ulu o le leoleo i le ma’a.”
First the words were clearly threatening from the perspective of the person who heard it. Second there is no doubt that words like these either create a breach of the peace or a breach of the peace may be occasioned. Despite what the defendant said during his evidence, I have little hesitation in accepting the truthfulness of Constable Paitomaleifi’s account of who said what. I find the defendant guilty of the charge.
Information - D4238/12 accuses the defendant of being armed with a dangerous weapon. The prosecution in proving this charge relies on the evidence of Constable Vaotupu Tuatagaloa. In her evidence she described that the vehicle she was in with other police officers was stopped at the road block on their way from Leulumoega. It was there and then she saw Lua Aiga wave an iron bar at their motor vehicle as they drove off on their way to the station at Faleolo. The defendant disputes Constable Tuatagaloa’s account of what he was holding. He said it was a paintbrush. Whether it was a paintbrush or an iron bar that Aiga was holding that morning, there is no evidence that he held it without lawful justification. I am far from satisfied that Aiga should be found guilty for this offence.
I find that he is not guilty of this offence and the charge is dismissed.

Samuelu Mauga

Information – D4241/12 accuses the defendant of being found in possession of an unregistered firearm pursuant to section 9 of the Arms Ordinance 1960. The firearm as already referred to was seized by the Police and produced as an exhibit during evidence. The firearm which was found inside Mauga’s pickup truck according to the evidence of several police officers is unlawful. To bring a prosecution under section 9 of the Arms Ordinance the prosecution is required to prove the following: the defendant is not the registered owner of the firearm; the defendant is not a licensed firearms dealer; and the defendant must have had possession of the firearm for a period of more than seven days.
First Mauga denied in his evidence that he owns the firearm. The prosecution did not offer any evidence regarding the ownership of the firearm. Secondly there is no evidence the defendant is a licensed firearms dealer. Thirdly, there is no evidence that Mauga has had possession of the firearm for a period longer than seven days. If anything, when he gave evidence he denied owning a firearm, let alone an unlawful one like the one the police found inside his truck. On the evidence, I find the defendant not guilty of the offence because the prosecution has not proven the elements of the offence. The charge is accordingly dismissed.
Information - D4624/12 accuses the defendant of resisting police. Despite the attempt by the prosecution inviting the Court into the realm of speculation on this particular charge there is absolutely no evidence worthy for the Court to consider this charge. For this reason, the charge is dismissed.

Faamatala Aukuso

Information D4232/12 accuses the defendant of being found with an unlicensed firearm. This charge should have never been brought. There is not a shred of evidence that the firearm that was confiscated from Mr Mauga’s pickup was in any way connected to this defendant. The charge is dismissed.

Summary of Findings

Found guilty under the unlawful assembly charge (Information D4244/12): Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, Muagututia Akeripa Toalepaialii, Vaili Mimita, Ga Sakalia, Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga, Lua Aiga, Sani Ili and Tagi Fifita.
Found not guilty: Uikai Samuelu Faleupolu, Lasei Sione, Lesisamoa Faga, Tomasi Ilioletutu, Samuelu Lagalaga, Amosa Maini, Toese Punavai, Pa’u Tavita, Samuelu Mauga and Fa’amatala Aukuso.

Found guilty under other charges:

Toeolesulusulu C. Schuster; two counts of resisting the police: Informations D4686/12 and D4682/12, and Insulting words D4246/12.
Muagututia Akeripa; one count of resisting the police: D4239/12.
Vaili Mimita; four counts of resisting the police: Informations D4645/12, D4673/12, D4675/12 and D4660/12 and one of insulting words D4668/12.
Ga Sakalia; two counts of resisting the police: Informations D4627/12 & D4626/12.
Iliolemalae Seifaamau Faga; two counts of resisting the police: Informations D4234/12 & D4631/12, and one of insulting words: Information D4637/12.
Lua Aiga; three counts of resisting the police: Informations D4642/12, D4643/12 & D4645/12, and of threatening words: Information D4236/12.
All other charges against some of the defendants of either resisting/obstructing a police officer, using threatening/insulting words, or armed with a dangerous weapon, or in possession of an unregistered firearm are either dismissed as duplicate charges, or as alternative charges to charges proven, or for insufficient evidence.

...............................................

VAEPULE VAEMOA VA’AI

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSDC/2013/1.html