Police v Pualii [2011] WSSC 119 (19 September 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

LAFAI PUALII aka
LAFAI FALEFATA PUALII FAAPITO
Defendant

Counsels: Ms L Su'a-Mailo for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 19 September 2011

SENTENCE

After a defended hearing at which this defendant represented himself, he was found guilty of the charge of rape by a panel of assessors after less than one hours deliberation. The speed with which the assessors delivered their verdict reflected the strength of the prosecution evidence and the flimsy nature of the defendants denials. I am in agreement with the assessors and have no doubt in my mind that the defendant raped the complainant whom at that time was 15½ years of age. The defendants not guilty plea meant that this young girl was forced to come to court and relive her traumatic experience, something which could have been avoided by the defendant pleading guilty. This defendant showed no mercy on this young complainant in committing the act that he did and in putting her through the ordeal of a trial. And in his cross-examination and questioning of her while she was on the witness stand. Despite the assessors verdict he continues to maintain his innocence as reflected in his statements to the probation office recorded in their pre-sentence report. His expression of remorse and seeking of forgiveness therefore this morning on the date of his sentencing are efforts that come too little, too late.

The facts heard at trial show this to be an unsavoury rape. The defendant is a 67 year old mature male who committed an offence on a 15½ year old girl. The facts showed that on the night in question after evening prayers, the complainant was on her way back to her house when she was ambushed by the defendant. She had gone to a relatives house to ask for $2 for pasese to school the next day. She did not get her $2 but the defendant was there and he heard their conversation. As the girl returned home the defendant intercepted her on the road and told her he would give her $1 if she had sex with him. The girl refused and the defendant who is despite his small build bigger physically than the girl, according to the girl "pue" (that was the word she used in her evidence) or "abducted" her and dragged her to a nearby dark and secluded building where he raped her. An act which led to the loss of her virginity.

No victim impact report has been placed before the court but I have no doubt that the offending would have impacted not only physically but also psychologically on this young complainant; damage that in many cases continues on into later life with many young girls subjected to such experiences.

Rape carries a maximum penalty of life in prison and that should tell the defendant and everyone else how seriously the law regards the offence. Sentences imposed for this offence by the courts have invariably been terms of imprisonment.

The offending here is aggravated by the element of premeditation in the defendants actions in his physically abducting the girl and dragging her to a secluded house. The evidence was that in order to do this the defendant pulled her over a stone wall, an act which no doubt involved the defendant using his superior size and strength. There was also evidence that the defendants son is married to the victims auntie so the defendant was not a complete stranger to the complainant.

I am sure I do not need to but I remind the press that a suppression order has been made in respect of the details of the complainant in this matter and in respect of the village where this offending occurred.

Considering all the circumstances of the matter an appropriate start point for sentence is 15 years in prison. But you are entitled to certain deductions by law which I will now make. The defendant has a previous conviction for sexual offending as per his card tendered by the prosecution this morning. But I note Lafai that occurred over 40 years ago and it is not only old but ancient. It should be disregarded and you will be treated as a first offender. Not only are you a first offender but you appear for sentence at the ripe old age of 67 years. Considering both those matters I will make more than the usual deduction and will deduct 2 years for your first offender status and previous good character. From 15 years that leaves a balance of 13 years.

Probation office pre-sentence report also confirms that Lafai was punished by his village council. He has been banished which is an appropriate penalty to be imposed. His family was also fined as confirmed in the probation report and the payment for that no doubt was contributed to in some way by the defendant. For those matters I will deduct a further term of 2 years from your sentence of 13 years leaving a balance of 11 years.

There are no other deductions that you qualify for. You would have received a substantial deduction Lafai for a guilty plea but you did not plead guilty, you elected to contest this matter.. There is accordingly no deduction for that matter.

A balance of 11 years remains; you will be convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison for this matter. Your remanded in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.

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