Police v Manuleleua [2000] WSSC 52 (18 July 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE

AND

LAUESE SAPINI MANULELEUA

Counsel: Ms S. Hazelman for the Prosecution
Mr T.K. Enari for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 27 June 2000
Date of Decision: 18 July 2000

SENTENCING REMARKS BY WILSON J.

HIS HONOUR: Lauese Sapini Manuleleua of Vaimoso, you are a 22 year old single man. You are a first offender. You come from a good home. You have had a good education. You have been in good employment. You are of previous good character. You have many people dependent upon you.

You have pleaded guilty to the crime known as manslaughter. You were responsible for the death of another man. The knowledge of this is something that you must live with for the rest of your life. I accept that there was an element of provocation in your decision to assault the deceased.

In the early hours of the 21st April, you and your friends walked towards Fugalei after a night out. When you reached the new market at Fugalei, the deceased called out to you and your friends for a cigarette lighter. The response that was given was that no-one had one. Then several people, including the deceased, came running towards you and your friends for no apparent reason. As you and your friends ran away from the market area and as you ran over the bridge and were pursued, you became provoked. You were provoked, to an extent, by their conduct, presumably when you yourself were in a frightened and emotional state.

You lifted a stone and walked towards the deceased. As your plea of guilty recognises, you assaulted the deceased with that stone, having an intent to cause bodily harm. The deceased was struck on the fore-head by the stone, suffering a depressed fracture, which caused his death.

This is a case of involuntary, (unintentional) manslaughter. By an unlawful act, that is to say, assaulting the deceased with a weapon, (a stone) you committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter.

You are now extremely remorseful. A traditional ifoga has been performed and that apology has been accepted. To your credit, you pleaded guilty of the first opportunity.

I have read the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service. I have read the favourable references that were submitted with that report. One was prepared by Uaina Liki from Vailima Samoa Breweries Ltd. Another was prepared by Kasiano Leaupepe, the former Catholic priest at Vaimoso. And another was prepared by Matavao Sione Toia, the village mayor of Vaimoso. I have listened carefully to the submissions made on your behalf by your counsel. Mr Enari.

I have had reason, in two fairly recent cases, to discuss some of the sentencing principles that apply in cases of manslaughter. I refer to the Police v Chris Phillip, 21st April 1999, an unusual and exceptional case, and the Police v Simone Tiapuu, 24th June 1999, and I do not overlook what was said in the case of Faatua Vili v Police (1980-1993) WSLR 550.

The starting point for the sentence that is appropriate for you is 4 years imprisonment. You are entitled to some leniency (I can show mercy to you) to the extent of reducing your sentence by 1/3. I can do that because you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and you have shown positive indications of remorse, including the making of the traditional ifoga, and you co-operated with the prosecuting authorities.

Having regard to some other factors, I can increase the leniency (or mercy) to more than 1/2. I have in my mind (and take into account of) your youthfulness, your good background, your good work record, the absence of any previous convictions, the favourable testimonials and the submissions made on your behalf by your lawyer.

To repeat something of what I said on earlier occasions in this court, there are some crimes of violence when actual imprisonment must be ordered, even in the case of a first offender (as you are), even in the case of a young man of previous good character (as you are), even in the case where a traditional apology (ifoga) has been made and accepted, even when the notion of restorative justice has been recognised quite fully (as has I think, happened here), and even in the case where others will be adversely affected by your imprisonment (as is the case here). This is such a crime.

The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned for a term of 18 months. Probation is not an appropriate sentence in this case.

I would just add this. There are some crimes and some criminals where the sentence of imprisonment should carry with it the normal deprivation of liberty and restriction of privileges. There are other situations when, in the public interest and in the interests of the rehabilitation of the prisoner, the harshness of a custodial sentence can (and should) be ameliorated. Such harshness may be reduced through such mechanisms as home detention, release to work, home leave and, of course, parole.

This is a case in which it is appropriate for me, as the sentencing judge, to recommend (as I do) that consideration be given by the appropriate authorities at any appropriate time to one or more of these internationally-recognised 'alternatives to imprisonment' if there is scope for their implementation here in Samoa.

JUSTICE WILSON