Police v Maa'a [2010] WSSC 44 (29 April 2010)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SARA MAA'A
female of Faatoia & Asau, Savaii
Defendant

Presiding Judge: Justice Slicer

Counsel: G Patu & L Taimalelagi for prosecution
P L T Masipa'u for defendant

Hearing: 29 April 2010
Sentence: 29 April 2010

SENTENCE

Sara Maa'a has been found guilty of two crimes of the abduction of a child under the age of 16 contrary to Crimes Ordinance 1961 s.83 (b).

The circumstances of this case are complex and unusual. Sara had lived in a relationship with a man, Sene, for a little over 12 months as of the date of these crimes. The relationship had gone through bad times and the parties had lived separately but met or communicated from time to time. She had promised him a child. Sometime in April she believed that it was possible she was pregnant but she was not sure. As a matter of fact she delivered a child in December 2009 which would make the conception February 2009.

The defendant was anxious that the relationship continue or they be brought back together. They talked to each other by phone or by occasional meetings. They came together on Father's Day, 9 August 2009, and stayed together until 13 August 2009. She had told her partner that she had given birth to a child some time earlier. When he asked why he had not seen his son, she told him it was because of the Swine Flu and that it was dangerous to bring the child. She promised him she would return with the child later that week.

The mother of the child had been a friend of the defendant and no doubt had some trust in her. On Thursday, 20 August, the defendant approached her friend and asked her to allow her time with the mother's infant child. The defendant had told her a lie about losing her own baby whilst in hospital. She said the baby had been taken by another family member. Piana told her that she could not allow the child to leave and that her husband would not give her permission either. Later that night the defendant rang the husband who again refused his permission. On Friday 14 August, the defendant returned to Piana and eventually persuaded her to let her take the baby. Again she made a false story. She was allowed to take the baby with his older sister aged 5.

The defendant took the children to Sene's home and told his family that the baby was in fact Sene's child. When Sene returned she repeated the story to him. He was very happy with the story. And the defendant, her partner and the 2 children stayed at the house that night. The following day Sene had to go to work and the defendant asked him to return early. She said she needed to return the older child to his own mother. This again was untrue. The Court accepts that had Sene returned early she might have returned the older child, but that is not certain. He was kept at work and did not return until about 7pm. By then, other members of his family had seen a TV report that the two children were missing and had been taken by the defendant. The police were called and on their arrival the defendant ran away into the plantation. When she was told of the television story she denied that it was her but another person whom the police were searching for.

The Court accepts that the defendant meant no harm to the children. But as a mother she must understand the harm she has caused to the children's mother and her family. To have a one month baby taken and kept must cause every mother a great deal of fear and worry. She has caused that harm to the family of the other mother. The Court accepts that the defendant also did not intend to keep either child for very long. She had not thought how she would further lie her way out of the problem, but she must have known that she would be discovered.

The Court accepts that she did what she did because she thought she could keep her partner. The Court accepts that she did not know how she would get out of the problem. But she was stupid if she thought she could keep up with the pretense for more than two to three days. The Court accepts that she acted under emotional stress and without thinking of the consequences. She has received those consequences by her actions.

Her partner will not resume the relationship and she now must raise their child alone. The Court accepts that that will not be easy. She is now raising a young child, aged less than 6 months. It will not be in the public good to send her to prison. She is aged 33 and has no previous convictions. But the Court must also protect others from her conduct. I must also persuade her that there should be no repetition.

The Court will employ the power given to it by the Criminal Procedure Act s.113. The Court is satisfied as to the requirement of s.113 (1). Accordingly she will be called upon to be called for sentence being the period of 2 years.

ORDERS

1. That the defendant be convicted of the crime of abduction of the child
   
2. That the defendant to appear for sentence within a period of 2 years if required by the Court
   
3. It is a condition of this order that she commit no crime or offence during the period of 2 years
   

This matter is not over; it is deferred for 2 years. If you get into or cause trouble within the next 2 years you will come back to me. If it is not me, it will be another judge, and then you will be punished for these crimes or offences if you re-offend in anyway whatsoever.

The Court will serve the s.113 order on counsel.

JUSTICE SLICER