Police v Lia [2025] WSDC 15 (19 December 2025)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lia [2025] WSDC 15 (19 December 2025)

Case name:	Police v Lia
Citation:	[2025] WSDC 15
Decision date:	19 December 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Plaintiff) v ROPATI LIA (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	10 April 2025
File number(s):	2024-01613 DC:/CR/UP
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Judge Mata’utia Raymond Schuster
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant is convicted and ordered to serve 148 days (5 months and 8 days) in prison. Given that this is the Christmas period, I will show mercy for the prisoner and his family ordering that the prisoners sentence will commence on the 1st day of January 2026. The prisoner must present himself at the Police Headquarters in Apia at 12noon whereby he will be transported to Tanumalala prison.
Representation:	Corporal Ken Komiti and Sergeant Vitolina Niko for Prosecution Ms Iuni Sapolu for the Defendant
Catchwords:	The charge, the offending, the defendant, aggravating features of the offending, mitigating features of the offending, discussion, conclusion
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013s59(3), (5), s64(1)
Cases cited:	Police v Petelo Samaila (10 August 2021) WSDC Unreported; Police v Ah Wong [2025] WSDC 1 (4 April 2025)
Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

ROPATI LI’A of Vaitoomuli, Palauli, Savaii

Defendant

Counsel: Corporal Ken Komiti and Sergeant Vitolina Niko for Prosecution
Ms Iuni Sapolu for the Defendant

Date of hearing: 10^th April 2025

Date of Decision: 19^th December 2025

RESERVED DECISION ON SENTENCE

THE CHARGE

1. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of indecent assault pursuant to section 59(3) & (5) of the Crimes Act 2013 (CA2013) and found guilty of the charge of voyeurism pursuant to section 64(1) which states:
   • (1) A person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units or to both, who knowingly observes a person engaged in a private act, without the consent of the person being observed for that purpose and knowing that the person being observed does not consent to being observed for that purpose.

THE OFFENDING

2. The victim at the time of the alleged offence was 12 or 13 years old. She could not remember the exact month and date but state that it was in 2021. The victim’s adopted mother is the sister of her biological mother. The adopted mother is married to the defendant. At the time, the victim and her adopted mother were staying at Vaitoomuli, Palauli, Savaii with the defendant’s family.
3. The victim was going to have a shower in the late evening after washing her dishes. The shower and toilet were in a separate building a couple of metres from the main house and the light from the main house illuminated the shower. The shower only had a curtain to shield it off for privacy and the curtain entrance faced the main house.
4. She went in, undressed and started showering. However, she was startled when the defendant pulled the curtain aside and stepped inside the shower. He was intoxicated and stood there watching the victim whilst she was completely naked.
5. The commotion from the victim shouting caused the defendant’s mother to come over and took the defendant to the main house.

THE DEFENDANT

6. The defendant at the time of the offending was 41 years old, in a de facto relationship with the victim’s maternal aunty and residing at Vaitoomuli. He attended Ulimasao College and completed Year 13. His father was unable to support his education any further and caused him to miss out on an opportunity to attend the National University of Samoa (NUS) University Preparatory Year.
7. He was not employed but was looking after the family by doing plantation work and receiving monetary assistance from his sister overseas to take care of their mother. He was the leader of the untitled men of the village assisting in formal village matters and enforcement. He is a loyal and faithful servant of the Catholic Church at Vaitoomuli as evident in a letter from his Parish Priest.
8. The defendant before this matter was a law-abiding citizen.

AGGRAVATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDING

9. The offending was premeditated and opportunistic. Although alcohol was involved, it could not be determined whether the defendant was substance dependent causing him to make irrational decisions. In saying that, it is not an excuse for the offending if it were so but it is becoming quite common that many offences including the category of this offending are occurring under the influence of alcohol and within the nucleus of the family.
10. The age disparity was 28 years and the defendant took advantage of her vulnerability in age, physicality and innocence. Moreover, the victim had been under his care from a very young age.
11. From the Probation Report, it is noted that the Defendant still believes that he is innocent of the crime he has been found guilty of. This is a question of remorse and it appears that is not the case here.

MITIGATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDING

12. There are no mitigating features of this offending. It was fortunate that if it were not for the shouting of the victim and the grandmother coming to investigate, it could very well have been a more grievous sexual assault on the victim.

AGGRAVATING FEATURES AS AN OFFENDER

13. The age difference, the parental familial relationship and the fact that the defendant was intoxicated are aggravating features as an offender.

MITIGATING FEATURES OF THE OFFENDER

14. I take into account the defendant’s previous good character, a first offender as well as the consequences of the stigma upon the good reputation of his family name and embarrassment to him and his family.
15. In his favour, the defendant had undergone a rehabilitation program with his Catholic Priest providing spiritual and mental counselling to deter from re-offending.

DISCUSSION

16. A very important aspect of sentencing for sexual offences involving young children especially girls is deterrence to send a strong message that the Courts will no longer tolerate reckless conduct of like-minded adult offenders. It is unfortunate that the number of such cases are increasing in frequency. Perhaps a combination of substance abuse and sexually explicit technological information are too widely accessible without prohibition creating undesirable deviant behaviours.
17. It is noted that this type of offending is becoming common especially in the family environment such as stepfather and daughter relationships. This brings tremendous strain, tension and division on any family. Such as in this case, this family had been so broken apart by it where even the victim’s aunty who adopted her had rendered her loyalty to the defendant over the young victim.
18. Notwithstanding as to whether it may be deception, blind loyalty or misplaced sympathy, the enforcers of law and order, justice and fairness must pursue a standard of zero tolerance if we are to win the war against sexual crime involving young children. A strong message must be consistently made and an example to be made for like-minded persons that such offending will no longer be tolerated and receive lenient sentences.
19. I am of the view that a custodial sentence is appropriate in this matter in line with previous sentencing decisions^[1] in this court. I adopt the formula starting point in Police v Petelo of 12 months. 12 months means an average of 28 days.
20. I deduct the maximum of 20% (2 months and 13 days) for the defendants first offender status; a maximum of 20% (2 months and 13 days) for his rehabilitation program with his Catholic Priest; 8% (28 days) for mercy and less 18 days he was held in custody.

CONCLUSION

21. The defendant is convicted and ordered to serve 148 days (5 months and 8 days) in prison. Given that this is the Christmas period, I will show mercy for the prisoner and his family ordering that the prisoners sentence will commence on the 1st day of January 2026. The prisoner must present himself at the Police Headquarters in Apia at 12noon whereby he will be transported to Tanumalala prison.

JUDGE MATA’UTIA RAYMOND SCHUSTER

---

^[1] Police v Petelo Samaila (10 August 2021) WSDC Unreported; Police v Ah Wong [2025] WSDC 1 (4 April 2025)