Police v Vui [2008] WSSC 27 (21 May 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

TAVETE VUI male
of Puapua and Samalaeulu
Defendant

Presiding Judge: Justice Vaai

Counsel: Ms Titi for prosecution
Ms Papalii for defendant

Sentencing Date: 21 May 2008

SENTENCE BY JUSTICE VAAI

Defendant is 49 years of age and he appears for sentence on a very serious and prevalent offence of incest. The victim is his own biological daughter, she was 15 years at the time of the offence. According to the summary of facts it was in the early hours of the morning while she was asleep, the defendant held the victim’s hand, put her hand to his penis before he proceeded to have sexual intercourse with the victim. According to the victim’s impact report that was not the first occasion, the defendant sexually abused his daughter. According to what you told the probation service it was the victim who instigated the sexual intercourse. You told the probation service that you were asleep when you suddenly felt someone fondling with your penis and you felt aroused. You told the service that you kept your eyes closed, you felt someone on top of you and that person forced your penis into her vagina and was moving up and down. You then opened your eyes and you saw it was not your wife it was the victim and you pushed her away. To me that indicates the lack of remorsefulness on your part. You must accept responsibility for your offending.

The aggravating factors of your offending have been addressed by your counsel. First is the seriousness of the offence as well as its prevalence. Secondly there is a breach of trust that was placed on you by your own daughter as she looked upon you as her protector and provider. The primary consideration for this type of offence must be retribution and deterrence, to reflect the seriousness of the offence, to punish the offender, to deter the offender and other like-minded people from offending and re-offending and to relay condemnation by society of such conduct. This is particularly true here where the offender who is now 49 is the biological father of the victim who was aged 15 at the time of the offence. The victim like other young girls are entitled to expect that within their own families they would grow to maturity, unmolested and undefined by the lust of their fathers. She told the probation service that she was traumatized by the incident. Unfortunately when she reported the incident to her own mother, the mother ignored her pleas. The victim looked upon the accused as the father, protector and provider. What she called home will always be a constant reminder to her of pain, of confusion, fear and anger. The trust which existed in a father and daughter relationship has been completely shattered. The victim’s impact report described the victim as depressive and a time suicidal as a consequence of the offence. When the very fabric of family life is destroyed it is no surprise that the victim should experience depression and suicidal attendance. As I said a custodial sentence is the appropriate sentence.

In mitigation I accept your counsel’s submission that I should treat you as a first offender. I also take into account that you have entered a guilty plea although this was entered quite late in the proceedings and you will therefore not be accorded the full benefit which would have been entitled to if you have entered a guilty plea very earlier on. I also take in your favour the fact that you have been fined and banished by your village as a result of your offending.

I take 5 years as a starting point for the penalty to be imposed. For your guilty plea I deduct 6 months. I also deduct a further 6 months to accommodate for the banishment order and for the penalty imposed by your village. You will serve a total of 4 years imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI