Police v Pisone [2003] WSSC 52 (29 August 2003)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Informant

AND:

SALE PISONE, and BILLY FA’ALOLO,
all males of Vaigaga
Defendants

Counsel: Ms J. Stowers and Mr L. Petaia for prosecution
Mr Ropati for the defendant Billy Fa’alolo
Defendant Sale Pisone appears in person

Hearing: 7 July 2003
Sentence: 29 August 2003

REASONS FOR GUILTY VERDICT BY JUSTICE VAAI

At the close of counsels’ submissions on the 8^th July 2003 I found the two defendants guilty as charged of the offence of robbery. Due to the unavailability of a competent translator at the time I informed counsels that my reasons for the guilty verdict will be delivered in writing. These are my reasons.

The two accuseds from the village of Vaigaga are charged that at Vaigaga on the 22^nd March 2003 they did rob Siaki Naite male of Alamagoto of $70.00 in money. The complainant told the court that on Saturday evening he attended bible study at Saina and as his several attempts to hail down a taxi after the bible study to return to Alamagoto failed he decided to walk towards his village. At Vaigaga as he was walking on the right hand side (inland side) of the road someone called from inside the school compound on the opposite side of the road. He crossed the road to go where this person was calling. Two persons were inside the school compound which was separated from the road by a concrete wall about 4 feet high and the fat guy grabbed him by the shirt collar and pulled the complainant causing the complainant to fall on to the wall. The complainant backpack which was then hanging on his back and with both straps over his shoulders was forcibly removed, opened and emptied onto the ground. Although it was a dark night there a streetlight on the other side of the road and the complainant identified the accused Billy as the fat guy who grabbed and pulled his shirt collar. The same accused came to the other side of the wall through the nearby gate when a motor vehicle came and although the complainant sought assistance from the oncoming vehicle the vehicle continued on and the complainant ran after it away from the two accuseds. As his bag was forcibly removed the complainant smelled alcohol on both accused. A telephone to the police was made from a house close to the scene; the empty bag was recovered from the scene and the complainant filed with the police a written complaint before he was sent home. He told the police that he had $70.00 cash, clothes and car keys inside the bag.

Several days later the police through informations they received brought the two accuseds to the Apia police station for questioning. Both gave written statements to the police. The accused Billy admitted taking $10.00 as well as threatening the accused. He said he did it because he was drunk. The accused Sale also admitted drinking beer on the night in question inside the school compound when the complainant walked by and he called the complainant to come over. He then forcibly removed the complainant’s bag and the complainant ran away. Inside the bag he found $18.90, clothes and a plastic bottle of homebrew beer. They took the money and the beer and left the bag and clothes on the wall.

Under cross examination the complainant admitted there was a plastic bottle of homebrew beer inside his bag, and he also admitted he was not wearing a shirt as he walked along Vaigaga village, so that when he testified that he was held by the collar and pulled by one of the accused, he was not telling the truth. I also do not believe his evidence when he said he found the bottle of homebrew beer by the roadside while he was walking home that night. Similarly I do not accept that he had $70.00 inside the bag that night. In spite of my findings against part of the evidence of the complainant, I consider the complainant to be a person who, though in some respects perhaps a little unusual was indeed one well worthy of some credit. In fact I found most of this evidence supported by the written statement of the two accuseds and the oral testimony of the accused Billy.

Although the accused Billy denied in his oral testimony that he had been drinking on the evening in question, I accept from his written statement and the written statement of the accused Sale that both accuseds had been drinking that evening. Billy told the court he and his co-accused were inside the school compound policing the village curfew when they saw the complainant walking in the middle of the road in a drunken manner. He then called to the complainant who came over and Billy then told accused Sale to check the bag. The explanation given for checking the bag was because there have been a number of break ins at the rental premises within the village. But instead of asking or requesting the victim to open the bag for inspection the bag was forcibly removed and emptied despite resistance by the victim. Money was divided between the accused the homebrew beer consumed. Billy denied making oral and written admission to the police. When he signed his police statement, he said, there was no admission in it. I do not accept his evidence; nor do I accept that he was not advised of his rights before he gave the written statement.

I accept from the evidence that both accused threatened the complainant and forcibly removed his back bag on the evening of the 22^nd March 2003. The victim was in fact made powerless to prevent the removal of his bag and both the accused intended to steal the contents of the bag when they threatened the victim and removed the bag.

For the above reasons I find the charge against the two accuseds to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

JUSTICE VAAI