Police v Fati [2011] WSSC 145 (19 December 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SELOTI FAALETONU FATI male of Leulumoega-tuai.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms L Su'a-Mailo and Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Mr D Clarke for defendant

Sentence: 19 December 2011

SENTENCE

This is also a case of manslaughter but the circumstances here are different to the previous one. The prosecution summary of facts states that the defendant is a 23 year old male of Leulumoega-tuai, married and unemployed. The deceased is a 39 year old male of the village of Satapuala.

On the evening of Tuesday 17 May this year at around 6:30 pm, the deceased and some friends were drinking alcohol at Leulumoega. The group at some stage moved from where they originally began drinking to a billiard parlour and continued their consumption of alcohol behind the parlour.

Around 9:30 pm the defendant approached the group and had a conversation with the deceased. Subsequently the defendant put his arm around the deceased and the two of them walked off. Sometime later the deceased was seen walking on the road but the defendant was running after him chasing him. The summary says the chase went on for a while and when they reached a lemon tree the defendant punched the deceased in the face causing him to fall down. After punching the deceased the defendant ran away leaving the deceased by the road. It was left to neighbouring families to attend to the deceased and take him to the Leulumoega medical facility. He arrived at the medical outpost not breathing and with no heart beat in other words he had passed away.

It is not clear from that summary of facts how the defendant went from having his arm around the deceased and being obviously friendly with the deceased to chasing and beating him up. The defendant told the probation office that the deceased was a "faafafine" and that he had requested they indulge in sexual activity. A suggestion that he found unacceptable which led to a scuffle between him and the deceased and to him punching the deceased.

Defendants counsel has accordingly argued that this was some sort of provocation on the part of the deceased towards his client. An argument that I emphatically reject. Firstly there is no evidence such is what in fact happened. Secondly even if there was, such a suggestion does not justify the violent response it provoked from the defendant. And whether or not the deceased is a "faafafine" is irrelevant and does not operate to sway the sentence of this court one way or another. Defendant should tread warily in trying to blame dead people who are no longer able to speak for themselves.

I do not know what provoked the defendants wrath. But what is clear from the materials before me is the extent of his anger. The post mortem report shows that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head. It notes injuries to the head in the form of abrasions and lacerations including an abrasion with swelling at the right temporal region, underlying which was a comminuted or multiple piece depressed skull fracture of the right temporal bone. Underneath of that the brain which showed evidence of bruising and laceration. The defendant would have to have fists of iron in order to cause such injury with one punch to the head. Such injuries are not consistent with what is advanced by counsel for the defendant. Neither are they consistent with what is in the prosecution summary of facts.

The solution to the mystery lies in the defendants own cautioned statement to the police. Which states;

"Fesili: o le a le gaioiga lea sa e faia?

Tali: sa ou tuia ile maa.

Fesili: e fia au tu'i?

Tali: e tasi lava

Fesili: o fea tonu na tau ai lau tu'i?

Tali: sa tau i foliga"

If both counsel bothered to read that document they would have come to the realisation that the fatal injury sustained by the deceased in this matter was a result of a blow using a rock. The use of a rock is entirely consistent with the injuries found by the pathologist.

As this court also sits as a Coroners court as Coroner I find that the deceased in this matter died on 17 May 2011 at Leulumoega-tuai from severe head wounds which were the result of blunt force trauma inflicted by being hit with a rock. A blow delivered by the defendant. The coroners finding also certifies that alcohol was involved in this offending as there is evidence both the defendant and the deceased had been consuming local vodka prior to the fatal incident. This case once again being an example of how over consumption of unregulated alcohol which I have come to term jet-fuel sold at cheap prices in plastic bottles can cause severe harm. Something that someone will hopefully do something about one day.

I do not propose to restate the principles applicable to sentencing in manslaughter cases no doubt Seloti has heard them in the previous sentencing this afternoon. And no doubt he heard how the maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. And how penalty differs from case to case because of the variation in offending and offenders.

The police in this case are seeking the court impose on you no less than 4 years prison. Your counsel has submitted that a non-custodial penalty instead should be imposed. Because he says there are things like provocation present. I have already expressed my views on that issue, there is no provocation in this matter there being no evidence to support it. Your counsel has also said no weapon was used but as observed you admitted to the police you used a rock to deliver a fatal blow to the head. He has pointed to your guilty plea and I accept that is a mitigating factor as well as the fact that you are a first offender. He also referred to the existence of an ifoga and I accept that is also a relevant factor as is the village penalty imposed on you and your family to which you no doubt contributed.

Your counsel has also referred to the lack of pre-meditation arguing that this was a spur of the moment offending. I accept that but that factor must be balanced against your use of a weapon to inflict a blow to a persons head. Your counsel has pointed to your remorse and I accept that is the case. Your guilty plea and admission to the police given voluntarily is as good an indication of remorse as anything else. Those factors Seloti do not exempt you from a term of imprisonment. But they are relevant to the courts assessment of a period of time that is appropriate to what you did and to your circumstances.

Considering all matters I will accept the prosecutions submission by and large. You will be convicted and sentenced to a term of 4 years in prison.

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