Police v Matalavea [2006] WSSC 30 (19 May 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

SIAOSI MATALAVEA alias FAAVAOGA SIAOSI MATALAVEA
male of Faatoia.
Accused

Counsel: P Chang and M Boone-Dumaran for prosecution
M C Leung Wai for the accused

Sentence: 19 May 2006

SENTENCE

The charge

The accused was initially charged with murder. However, on 27 March 2006 the prosecution made application to reduce the charge to manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The charge was accordingly reduced. The accused then pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The offending

On Thursday night, 14 July 2005, the accused and his wife were attending the Avele College Old Pupils Association dance that was held at the RSA nightclub in Apia. They had been drinking four or five bottles of Vailima beer at the bar when the deceased and a friend arrived at the nightclub. That was between 9pm and 10pm. According to what the accused told the probation service and which appears in the pre-sentence report, the deceased, who was unknown to him, came over and complained to his (accused’s) wife about something in connection with an investigation the accused’s wife had carried out in the Ministry of Health whilst she was working with Treasury. This led to an argument between the accused and the deceased. The accused also told the probation service that he then told the deceased to take a bottle of beer and leave but the deceased, who was drunk, held a bottle of beer and tried to hit the accused with it. The accused who had already become angry with the deceased then punched the deceased on the mouth causing the deceased to fall to the floor. He then picked up a stool and hit the deceased on the head with it resulting in two serious injuries to the deceased’s head. The accused then left. The people inside the RSA nightclub attended to the deceased. He was later taken by the police to the hospital where he died about half an hour after arrival.

The deceased

The deceased was a 41 year old male from Ma’agao. He was married with four children. He was also a forklift operator with Apia Haulage Ltd. There is nothing else about the deceased.

The accused

The accused is a 43 year old male from Fa’atoia. He is married with three children. The youngest is the accused’s ten year old daughter. At the time of this offence he was the principal research officer (Nuu crop protection project) for the Ministry of Agriculture. Because of this incident, the accused has resigned from the Ministry of Agriculture.

The accused’s curriculum vitae which is attached to the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service shows that the accused had worked in the Ministry of Agriculture for twenty two years and held a number of senior positions in the Ministry until he resigned due to his involvement in the present offence.

The accused has also had a high educational background. He holds a Bachelor of Agriculture degree and a Diploma of Agriculture. At the time of the present offence he had one more course to pass to complete a post-graduate Diploma of Agriculture at the University of the South Pacific.

The testimonials and character references from the accused’s wife, two of his sisters, the Minister of Agriculture, the pastor of the accused’s village in Savaii, the vicar of the accused’s church in Apia, the President of the Avele College Old Pupils Association, and the Alii and Faipule of the accused’s village in Savaii all speak highly of the accused’s character and personal qualities. They show that the present offence is totally out of character.

The testimonial from one of the accused’s sisters also shows that the accused suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure. The same testimonial also shows that what has happened has had much emotional impact on the accused’s ten year old daughter particularly when the accused was taken into custody. The accused and his wife also have a substantial housing loan to repay. The accused is a first offender.

Aggravating circumstances

The only circumstance in this case which may be described as aggravating is that the accused continued to pick up a stool and hit the deceased with it after the deceased had fallen to the floor from the punch delivered by the accused.

Mitigating circumstances

There are several mitigating circumstances in this case. The pre-sentence report shows that this matter has been reconciled and settled between the accused and his family and the family of the deceased. The accused’s family has already performed the traditional ifoga to the family of the deceased which was accepted. A presentation of fine mats and a cash payment of $10,000 accompanied the ifoga. The accused’s family also made a substantial contribution to the lau’ava of the deceased which consisted of a cash payment of $10,000, ten cattle beasts, forty boxes of tinned fish, one large pig, and thirteen large fine mats. The total value of all these presentations is estimated to be around $40,000. It manifests genuine and heartfelt remorse on the part of the accused and his family.

A notable feature of this case is the magnanimous attitude of the family of the deceased. The sa’o (principal matai) of the deceased’s family has written to the Court on behalf of his family to confirm the reconciliation that has been effected and that his family has completely forgiven the accused. He also pleads for mercy on the accused and even seeks a non-custodial sentence.

Other mitigating circumstances are the accused’s immediate plea of guilty when the initial charge of murder was reduced to manslaughter, the fact that the acused is a first offender and was a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence, the accused’s previous good work history, absence of any premeditation, and an element of provocation from the deceased, Counsel for the accused in his plea in mitigation also pointed out that the accused had cooperated with the authorities.

The decision

The loss of a human life is a very serious matter and that is why manslaughter is always a serious crime. It is true that the sentences which this Court has imposed in the past in cases of manslaughter have varied from lengthy terms of imprisonment to non-custodial sentences depending on the particular circumstances of each case, but the Court has never lost sight of the gravity of the crime of manslaughter.

In passing sentence in this case, I take into consideration the aggravating circumstance already mentioned. I also take into consideration the mitigating circumstances which include the plea of guilty, the fact the accused is a first offender and was a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence, the ifoga performed by the family of the accused which was accepted by the family of the deceased, the consequential reconciliation, the substantial presentations made by the family of the accused to the family of the deceased, the accused’s good work history with the Ministry of Agriculture, cooperation with the authorities, the absence of any premeditation, and the element of provocation that was involved. The accused has also voluntarily resigned from his job with the Ministry of Agriculture as a result of this offence. I am also satisfied from the pre-sentence report and the plea in mitigation by counsel for the accused that the accused is filled with remorse and that what has happened will serve as an important lesson for him for the rest of his life.

In all the circumstances, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE