FAMILY VIOLENCE COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tautofi [2017] WSFVC 2
Case name: 	Police v Tautofi	
		
Citation: 	[2017] WSFVC	
		
Decision date: 	6 September 2017	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v MARIA TAUTOFI, female of Pago Pago and Falefa.	
		
Hearing date(s): 	30 August 2017	
		
File number(s): 	D717/17, D715/17, D714/17	
		
Jurisdiction: 	FAMILY VIOLENCE 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Family Violence Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	JUDGE ATOA SAAGA	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of threat to kill namely that, “ou ke fasiokia oe, ou ke aia oe”
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of armed with a dangerous weapon a knife
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of intentional damage.

Representation: 	I.	K Komiti for Prosecution
Unrepresented

Catchwords: 	Threatening words – breach of the peace
armed with dangerous weapon – not for a lawful purpose
Intentional Damage	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 section 129
Police Offences Ordinance 1961 section 25
Crimes Act 2013 section 184(3)	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Informant

A N D

MARIA TAUTOFI, female of Pago Pago and Falefa
Defendant

Counsel:	
K Komiti for Prosecution  
Unrepresented

Decision	6 September 2017

DECISION OF JUDGE ATOA SAAGA
The Charges.
1	The Defendant was charged with 3 charges of threatening words, armed with dangerous weapon and Intentional Damage. The particulars of these charges are:
(a)	That on 20th of June 2017, the Defendant verbally made a threat to kill namely “ ou ke fasiokia oe, ou ke aia oe” pursuant to Section 129 of the Crimes Act 2013.  
(b)	That on 20th June 2017, the Defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon namely a knife not being so armed for a lawful purpose pursuant to Section 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961. 
(c)	The on 20th June 2017, the Defendant intentionally damaged a tyre of a Getz valued at $100.00, the property of Masua Fauoo, a female of Moataa pursuant to Section 184(3) of the Crimes Act 2013. 
2	The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty to the Charges.
Background
3	The Victim is the aunty of the Defendant. On the said date, their family had a discussion. The Victim’s son had objected to the bestowal of matai titles on the members of their family. They were in court to decide whether the matais should have been bestowed and was referred back to the family to discuss whether there was an opportunity for settlement. At this meeting, the victim’s son Vena had voiced his objection. The Defendant was unhappy with the way that Vena presented his view. She considered what he said as long winded explanation and strongly felt that he had no right to object or to voice his opinion. 
4	She voiced her objection loudly. The victim retaliated by telling her to shut up or she will kick her. The Defendant and the Victim fought. The Defendant not only bit the Victim but she grabbed a rock and threw it at the victim whilst she was kneeling on the floor. Fortunately it did not hit the victim. 
5	She also admitted to biting the victim on the head.  She was then restrained by members of the family and her parents. Whilst she was led outside, she uttered the words for which she has been charged with. The Defendant agreed that she had said, “Ou ke aia oe”. She objected that she had said “Ou ke fasiokia oe.”
Threat to Kill
6	The elements of the offence are:
(a)	    Verbally makes a threat to kill or do bodily harm 
(b)	to any person. 
7	On the Defendant’s admission, I am satisfied that she did utter the words “ Ou ke aia oe.” In respect of the words “ Ou ke fasiokia oe”, I had to look closely at how the offence was alleged to have occurred. Emotions were high. She had just fought with the victim who had told her to shut up. She was already angry with the victim’s son and prior to the meeting, it was clear to the Court that whole family was upset with Vena for opposing the bestowal of matai titles on other members of the family. 
8	All the Prosecution witnesses heard her say, “ Ou ke fasiokia oe”. The Defence witnesses evidence was a justification of the Defendants action rather than discrediting the Prosecution evidence that she did utter the words “ Ou ke fasiokia oe”. 
9	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that under these circumstances, she did utter the words “ou ke fasiokia oe”. Even if she did not utter those words, by her admission in saying the words “ou ke aia oe, she is guilty of uttering threatening words.
Armed with a Dangerous Weapon and Intentional Damage
10	The Defendant was charged with being armed with a Dangerous weapon namely a knife. It was this knife that she used to slash the tyres.
11	Elements of the offence of being Armed with a Dangerous Weapon
(a)	    A person who is armed
(b)	With an offensive or dangerous weapon, instrument or thing
(c)	And cannot prove (the onus is on him or her) 
(d)	That she was armed for a lawful purpose
12	The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant was seen walking towards the car. The victim who owned the vehicle screamed that the Defendant was walking towards the car. In plain sight of all the Prosecution witnesses, they saw her with a knife. The knife they described was a kitchen knife which is used to cut food. 
13	The Defendant and the Defence witnesses denied that they had seen the Defendant with a knife. 
14	The elements of Intentional Damage are:
(a)	    A person who intentionally destroys or
(b)	Damages any property
(c)	With reckless disregard for the safety of any other property.
15	The Prosecution witnesses saw the Defendant slashing the tyre of the vehicle a gray Getz. Masua Faaoo had travelled to Falefa in this Getz with Palepa. They said they still travelled back to Apia in the Getz and it was when they got to Letogo that the tyre started to shake and they stopped at Vailele at the shop there to change the tyre. Masua said she took the tyre to the tyre shop to try and fix it but they could not because the knife had penetrated the hose inside the tyre and the slash on the tyre was quite wide that they could not mend it.
16	The Defendant and Defence witnesses did not provide any evidence to rebut the allegations raised in respect of the intentional damage. The Defendant said after she walked away from the meeting, she went home and cried and did not return to the meeting. 
17	A tyre is quite difficult to cut. It will require a very sharp knife with a pointed tip to penetrate its hard surface. The question that was asked by the Prosecutor was a key question in respect of this offence as to what type of knife was used. All the witnesses said it was a kitchen knife used to cut food. A bread knife would have not been able to cut through so easily.
18	After weighing the evidence, I am inclined to accept that the Defendant did return to the scene. She admitted that she had yelled out to her parents to get these people off the land. She was very upset when she left the scene. Earlier at the meeting, she could not control herself either. 
19	It is realistic that the damage to the tyre was detectable only when they had travelled some distance from Falefa. The knife that was described by the Prosecution witnesses was a medium size knife. I accept that the damage was not so noticeable until the tyre was subjected to constant movement and friction as the vehicle was travelling to Apia.
20	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not only armed with a dangerous weapon namely but that she also intentionally damaged the vehicle.
CONCLUSION
21	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of threat to kill namely that, “ou ke fasiokia oe, ou ke aia oe”
22	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of armed with a dangerous weapon a knife
23	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant did commit the offence of intentional damage.

Judge Atoa Saaga