Police v Laifa [2006] WSSC 17 (11 April 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

KOROSETA LAIFA
male Toomatagi and Iva Savaii.
Accused

Counsel: M Soonalole for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 11 April 2006

SENTENCE

The charge

The accused is charged under s.53(1) of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 with the offence of having sexual intercourse with a girl between the age of 12 and 16 years which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity on 13 February 2006 and was remanded in custody.

The offending

According to the summary of facts produced by the prosecution, on Sunday afternoon, 8 January 2006 at about 1:00pm, the victim who lives at Tufuiopa was sent by her aunty to her grandmother to give her a telephone number. As the victim was walking along the road, a taxi stopped by her and the driver asked her if she knows the house of Toma and the victim replied no. The victim then continued walking to the place of her grandmother while the taxi followed her. The driver repeatedly urged the victim to get into his taxi to accompany him to the Matautu wharf. Apparently there was a cruise ship at the Matautu wharf at that time. The driver of the taxi was the accused and a total stranger to the victim.

Finally, the victim got into the taxi and the taxi proceeded to Vaiala and stopped at the sea wall. The accused asked an Indian male who was on the seawall for the whereabouts of another Indian male and he was directed to a nearby house. The taxi went to this place and an Indian male came towards the taxi and the accused said to him 'This is the girl.' The Indian man shook his head that he did not want the victim. The taxi then proceeded to town and the victim asked the accused to drop her home but the accused said they were going first to Toomatagi to drink ice water.

When the accused and the victim arrived at Toomatagi they went into a house which was unoccupied. The accused then got some ice water while the victim was sitting on a bed in the sitting room. It was during this time while they were in the house that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim. Afterwards, the victim was dropped off at her place at Tufuiopa.

The accused

The accused is a 25 year old male of Toomatagi and Iva in Savaii. He has a wife with two children, both girls, aged 5 years and one year who are dependant on him. He started working as a taxi driver at the beginning of this year being paid a weekly wage of $200. Previously, the accused had been a shopkeeper for 5 years.

The accused is a first offender.

The victim

The victim is 15 years of age and attends primary school.

Mitigating factors

The accused’s plea of guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity and the fact that he is a first offender are mitigating factors in this case.

Aggravating factors

The accused and the victim were strangers to one another. The victim did not want to go with the accused in his taxi but the accused urged her to get into the taxi and go with him to the Matautu wharf. From what followed, the irresistible inference is that the accused’s real purpose was to take the victim to another man (a foreigner) for that man to have sex with the victim. That man did not want the victim. When the accused and the victim drove back to town the victim wanted to be dropped off at her home but the accused took her to a house at Toomatagi where he had sexual intercourse with her.

The decision

The circumstances of this case place it in the more serious categories of cases of having sexual intercourse with a girl between the age of 12 and 16 years. Having regard to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment for this offence, the starting point for sentencing in this case should be 3 years imprisonment. I will deduct one year for the mitigating circumstances which include the accused’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, the fact that he is a first offender, and his personal circumstances. That leaves 2 years imprisonment.

The accused is therefore sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. The period during which the accused has been remanded in custody is to be deducted from that sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE