Police v Seiuli [2011] WSSC 115 (22 August 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

LEASO SEIULI aka PENITITO SEIULI male of Tiavea and Faleasiu.
Defendant

Counsels: Mr G Patu for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 22 August 2011

SENTENCE

This defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge that on the 13th of July this year he did attempt to rape the complainant in this matter. That plea of guilty was confirmed again by the defendant to me this morning when given an opportunity to speak in mitigation of penalty. In respect of the complainants identity would the ladies and gentlemen of the press note that as with all these sorts of cases a suppression order will issue in respect of the complainants details including her village and the place where this offending occurred.

The maximum penalty for the offence the defendant has pleaded guilty to is 10 years in prison. It is a serious charge and usually offences of attempted rape are met by penalties of imprisonment. As stated in Police v Leilua [2008] WSSC 47;

"One of the considerations the court must take into account in this type of case is the need for deterrence. In order to safeguard the community in particular females thereof from the sort of criminal conduct committed by the defendant in this case."

In Police v Leilua the penalty imposed by the court was 6 years and 2 months in prison but the degree of violence in that case was higher than in the present case.

The police summary of facts which the defendant has accepted this morning says that he is a 33 year old male of Tiavea and Faleasiu, married with four children and is employed as a taxi driver. The pre-sentence report from the probation office says that he is a devoted family and church man and the presence of his ministers wife to petition on his behalf this afternoon confirms that. It is clear that the wife and children will suffer from a penalty of imprisonment. But they will become the innocent debris of this sort of criminal behaviour.

It is equally clear that the offending by this defendant is serious as related in the summary of facts which says as follows; the defendant and the complainant are related in the sense that the defendant is the brother-in-law of the complainants husband. They live on the same property but in different households. At about 5:00 am on the morning of 11 July the complainant was waiting for a bus to come into town when the defendant passed by in his taxi. He offered her a lift and no doubt because she knew who he was, she accepted. On the way however the defendant suddenly stopped his vehicle in a bushy area causing the complainant to feel alarmed and to leave the taxi and start walking towards the main road. The defendant followed her and apologised and said to her that there was nothing and that he would drive her to work. The complainant reluctantly accepted this and got back into the vehicle and the defendant drove her to work.

Two days later on 13 July the complainant was again waiting for her bus when the defendant passed by and offered her a lift. Although she was reluctant he managed to coax her into the vehicle assuring her that she was safe. So she entered and sat in the back seat of the taxi. On the way into town the defendant began making sexual advances towards the complainant and telling her to leave the husband and elope with him. This continued for some time and when the vehicle reached Vaitele-uta it again suddenly pulled over to a bushy area. The defendant locked the doors and the windows of the vehicle. He then jumped into the back seat grabbed the complainants shirt and forcefully removed it. He then grabbed the complainants breasts, attempted to kiss her and tried to fondle her private part. While this was going on the complainant was struggling. She slapped away his hands and slapped at his mouth but the defendant persisted in his actions. The summary states that the defendant restrained her, pulled her hair and threatened to beat her. However the complainant was determined not to submit and continued to fight off the defendant. At one stage she was able to get her hands free and unlock the door. She got out of the vehicle and ran away. Later that day the matter was reported to the police.

The complainant in her victim impact report says that she did not suspect the defendant had any sexual interest in her as he had always treated her like a sister. And that she trusted the defendant and his actions have greatly shocked her and betrayed that trust. She said she was afraid for her safety and all she could think of when this was going on was to escape from being trapped in the car. It is clear from reading these facts that the defendant used his relationship with the complainant to lure her into his taxi. And that when the complainant rejected his advances, he used force to try and overcome her resistance. It is also clear that had she not struggled and continued to struggle and eventually become able to escape this would have become a rape. An even more serious offence.

As stated earlier this offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Considering all circumstances of this matter I adopt the similar start point to Leiluas case I start sentence at 7½ years. From that is to be deducted certain matters which you are entitled by law to receive. The first is that for your early guilty plea which has saved the courts time and valuable resources and also saved the complainant having to relive this incident I make a deduction of one-third of your term. That guilty plea is also the best expression of your remorse for your offending and I accept you are remorseful as you related to the court this morning. That one-third deduction adds up to 30 months that leaves a balance of the term of 60 months.

You are a first offender you are entitled to some credit for that. You have also apologised to the complainants husband and to the complainants parents for this matter and that has been confirmed by the probation office. The most important person you should have apoligised to is the complainant. There is no mention of an apology to her in the material before me. I will however still take into account your apology to the husband and the girls parents and I also take into consideration the petition that was placed before the court this afternoon. For all those factors I will deduct a period of 12 months from the balance of your sentence leaving a remaining balance of 48 months.

There are no other deductions that you are qualified for or are available to you. For this matter Leaso you will be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. But your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.

............................
JUSTICE NELSON