Police v Miti [2007] WSSC 20 (26 February 2007)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

PETI LI’O MITI,
male of Sapapalii Savaii.
Defendant

Counsel: Toohey for informant
R. Papalii for defendant

Hearing: 26th February 2007

CHANGE OF PLEA

In accordance with the applications made by counsel the court will make the following orders, firstly: all charges against you Peti except for charges numbered S1587/05, S1588/05 and S1590/05 are withdrawn and dismissed. In respect of those three remaining charges your application to vacate the not guilty plea is granted and a guilty plea to those charges is substituted.

There is something further that I wish to say in relation to this matter. In dealing with a defendant or an accused person or indeed a court case, criticism is sometimes leveled at judges and the justice system about the delay in having these matters disposed of. I would like to set the record straight that these delays are frequently caused by defendants and counsels themselves.

This case is a typical case. These charges were laid against the defendant in 2005 some two years ago now. The court record reveals that originally guilty pleas were entered but subsequently these were substituted by not guilty pleas. The courts leave was given to that to be done, and the matter was adjourned to a hearing date in 2006. That hearing did not take place in 2006 because it appears there was some problem with the prosecution witnesses’ ability to appear on trial day. Accordingly an adjournment was granted and it was then set down for hearing to be dealt with today and tomorrow on the defendant’s not guilty pleas, which were still being maintained. What has happened this morning is that all but three of the charges against the defendant have now been withdrawn and dismissed and he has changed his plea back to guilty in respect of the remaining three charges.

Now the point I wish to make is this, if there was to be a rearrangement of the charges and a change of plea, I do not see why that was not done at the calling of this matter last year or at least shortly thereafter. The consequences of that is firstly: as a general rule, the longer a guilty plea is delayed the less impact it carries in mitigation for a defendant. Secondly, the court has lost two valuable days of scheduled trial time. It is no secret there is a long list of outstanding fixtures awaiting completion and trial in the Supreme Court. These two valuable days could have been assigned to some other case if action had been taken earlier. Thirdly, I as the trial judge have prepared for this case which is now not going to proceed. There is always plenty of other work a trial judge can usefully apply his time to rather than preparing for a case that is not going to proceed.

This is not an isolated incidence hence the reason why I am making these comments. I make them in the hope that in future cases if there is going to be a change in plea then please do not leave it to the last minute but this should be attended to by counsels before hand so that we do not end up in the position we are faced with today.

In respect of your matter Peti you are remanded on the same bail conditions to the week commencing the 19th March 2007 for a victim impact report, probation report and for sentence.

NELSON J