Police v Seiuli [2006] WSSC 58 (4 November 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

INA SEIULI
male of Nofoalii.
Accused

Counsel: A Lesā for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 04 November 2006

SENTENCE

The charge

The accused is charged under s.79 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 with the crime of wilfully causing grievous bodily harm without lawful justification which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge he has pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

The offending

The summary of facts prepared by the prosecution and confirmed by the accused shows that on Tuesday night, 15 August 2006, at about 7pm, the accused, the victim and two male friends were drinking beer in front of the new golf curse at Mulifanua. Between 10pm and 11pm, the group left to buy more beer at a nearby shop. On their return, the accused punched the victim on the mouth three times causing the victim to fall on the ground. The victim was later taken to the Motootua National Hospital for treatment.

A report dated 13 September 2006 from the dentist who examined and treated the victim shows that the right side of the victim’s lower jaw was fractured so that the occlusion of his teeth was deranged. This required the lower and upper jaws to be wired and they remained locked for four to six weeks. At the time of the dentist’s report the victim was still undergoing weekly check-ups at the hospital.

The pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service shows that the accused told the probation service that he, the victim, two male friends, and a girl were drinking beer on the night in question. Everyone became drunk and the victim stood up and screamed at the top of his voice. The accused tried to stop the victim from screaming and when he could not stop the victim, he punched him three times. The first punch hit the victim on the face, the second punch caused the victim to fall to the ground, and the third punch broke the victim’s jaw.

Both accounts of what occurred show that this incident is alcohol related and both the accused and the victim were drunk.

The victim

The victim is a 22 year old male from the village of Vailuutai. He is single. At the time of this incident he was working as a bartender at the new Aggie Grey Resort at Mulifanua.

The accused

The accused is a 35 year old male from the village of Nofoalii. He is married with two children. At the time of this incident he was employed as a guitarist in the string band of Aggie Grey’s Hotel. He left his employment on his own accord when this incident happened. He is now operating a small food stall with his wife at the primary school of his village from which he earns $100 a week. Even though the accused is a Mormon, he is addicted to alcohol. Except for this, the accused is described by the bishop of his church as a good and well-disciplined person.

The accused is a first offender. He has apologised to the victim and this matter has been settled between the two of them. He has also expressed remorsefulness for what happened.

Mitigating circumstances

The accused’s plea of guilty to the charge at the first available opportunity and the fact that he is a first offender are mitigating circumstances. I would also take into account in this connexion the acused’s apology to the victim and his expression of remorsefulness to the Court. I would place limited weight on the provocation from the victim as it was not directed personally at the accused and the extent of the accused’s reaction was caused more by his being drunk himself than by the victim’s drunken screaming.

Aggravating circumstances

The extent of the assault, namely, three punches to the victim, one being thrown when the victim was already on the ground, and the seriousness of the injuries are aggravating circumstances. The effect of the injuries on the victim is also relevant in this connexion. No doubt the victim was not able to go to work as a result of his injuries which means loss of income for him.

The decision

In weighing up the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I have decided to impose a short-term custodial sentence in this case. This is a typical case of a drinking session which ends up in one drunkard inflicting serious injury on another drunkard by punching him. A deterrent sentence should also be imposed to convey the message to the public at large and, in particular, to those who engage in the consumption of alcohol that if they cannot control themselves under the influence of alcohol and cause injuries to others, then they run the risk of going to prison, even if the assault was unpremeditated. Too many serious injuries have resulted from the consumption of alcohol.

The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution