Police v Atia'e [2010] WSSC 145 (16 August 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

ATIA'E LEMAFA ATIA'E, male of Sapo'e.
Defendant

Counsels: Mr G. Patu for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 16 August 2010

SENTENCE

This is also a case involving grievous bodily harm which carries the maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. The summary of facts which the defendant accepts relates as follows: The defendant is a 23 year old male of Falealili, single and employed as a carpenter. He also has a plantation. The victim is a 30 year old male of Sapo'e married with two children and also works on a plantation.

On Saturday 3 July 2010 at about 11 oclock at night, the defendant and some friends were walking back from buying cigarettes at a shop at Sapo'e when they met up with the victim. There was an exchange of words between the defendant and the victim and this ended up in the defendant striking the victim in the face with a torch. The blow landed in the mouth and nose area of the victim and knocked him unconscious. Quite callously the defendant left the unconscious victim lying on the side of the road where a passing bus driver found him and took him to hospital for treatment.

The victim impact report indicates that the injuries to the victim were severe comprising of a broken nose and loss of two front teeth. Surgery and stitching was required as was a stay in hospital and it took one month for the victim to recover from his wounds. According to the victim impact report the wounds also left permanent scars but it is difficult to see where the scars would be located given the injuries caused. The victim impact report also says the assault was unprovoked but I doubt that very much. Usually an assault like this is because of some reason. I think the truth lies in what the defendant told the Probation Office that the victim was intoxicated and was abusive towards him and so he hit him with the torch.

It is therefore in the defendants favour that he was provoked and I take that into consideration as well also the defendants guilty plea which has saved the courts time and resources. And further that there has been an apology between the two families although not to the victim personally according to the documents before me.

Considering all the factors of your case a 2 year penalty of imprisonment is appropriate and I reduce that by 6 months because of the provocation that was coming from the victim causing you to retaliate bringing your penalty down to one year and a half. But it appears that you have a recent previous conviction for a similar offence. On the 13 February 2009 you were convicted in the District Court of actual bodily harm, you were placed on probation and ordered to do community service. This previous conviction means you are not a first offender and that you failed to learn anything from your first court appearance. In relation to that previous conviction therefore I am upgrading the penalty back to 2 years. For this charge you will be convicted and sentenced to prison for 2 years.

JUSTICE NELSON