Police v Keresi [2011] WSSC 64 (21 March 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

LUPEULUIVA KERESI PI, male of Vaovai Falealili.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution
Mr A Roma for defendant

Sentence: 21 March 2011

SENTENCE

This defendant appears for sentence on a charge that by an unlawful act namely assault on the 6th day of May 2009 at Vaovai he did cause the death of the deceased in this matter thereby committing the offence of manslaughter. The summary of facts which the defendant through his counsel has accepted relates that he is a 31 year old male of Vaovai, Falealili, married with children and works on his plantation as do many young Samoans. The deceased was a 53 year old male also of the same village married with 6 children.

The summary states that on the evening of the day in question the deceased was drinking with the defendant and another acquaintance outside the deceaseds house at Vaovai. During this drinking session the deceased questioned the defendant as to why he stole taro from his plantation to which the defendant did not reply. The defendants acquaintance however apologised to the deceased on behalf of the defendant. The session continued and at some stage later the deceased invited the defendant and the defendants acquaintance to his house for a meal. The deceased then stood up and went towards his house. But before he reached his house he heard a window smashing and ran back to the front of his house where his car had been parked. He arrived there to find the window of his car had been smashed by a rock thrown through it and he saw the defendant running away from the scene.

This angered the deceased who then got into his car and drove to the defendants house. Upon arrival there he woke the defendants younger brother and asked him the whereabouts of the defendant. The brother asked him what was wrong. The deceased did not explain any further but turned and walked away saying that he would return later. The defendants younger brother went back to bed but it was not long before he heard a commotion in front of their house. He got up and walked to the front. There he was shocked to see the deceased lying on the ground and the defendant standing over him punching him in the face.

The defendants younger brother hurried over and saw the deceaseds face was all bloody and pulled away and assaulted the defendant. People who came to the scene intervened and separated the defendant and his younger brother. When the younger brother checked on the deceased and tried to wake him up there was no response from the deceased except to moan in pain.

The deceased was taken to Poutasi Hospital and the nurses there examined him on arrival and declared that he had passed away en-route to the hospital. The deceased was subsequently transferred to the Tupua Tamasese Meaole Hospital at Motootua where a post mortem examination was conducted. This showed that there were multiple lacerations to the deceaseds face and when his brain was examined it was found to contain multiple contusions and subdural hematoma or subsurface bleeding. A result of the post mortem examination was a finding that the cause of death was failure of the vital centers of the brain following bleeding inside of the brain as a result of the blunt trauma to the deceaseds head and face.

As a result of this incident the defendant has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the deceased. The incident is even more tragic because the documents before the court indicate that the deceased is the defendants uncle. And according to the deceaseds wife the two men had a good relationship prior to this incident occurring. One can only conclude looking at the facts that like many similar incidents alcohol was probably a significant factor in the incident. Too much alcohol can cause the meek to become supermen and people to do things that they normally would not do. This case like many other cases again only brings home the point about the danger of consuming alcohol to excess.

The prosecution in their submission have rightly referred to the approach the court follows in cases of manslaughter. Noting the comments of the Court of Appeal in Police v Nepa [2009] WSSC 112 case that there is no offence in which the permissible degree of punishment covers so wide a range. And none perhaps in which the exercise of so large a discretion is called for in determining penalty. It is also correctly noted it is not possible to set tariff sentences for manslaughter because it is for the judge in each case to determine the appropriate sentence having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The approach to sentencing in such cases is to set a starting point having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors and the offending. As stated by the court in Police v Nepa even though manslaughter has a maximum of life in prison a usual starting point has been in other cases a period of 8 years. For this case I consider that an appropriate starting point taking all matters into consideration.

Defendant, 8 years has been determined to be the start point for sentence but from that you are entitled to certain deductions according to the law. The first and foremost is a deduction for your guilty plea because that has saved the courts time and resources. For that I deduct a period of 2½ years leaving a balance of 5½ years. For the fact that you are a first offender and was of previous good character as testified in your probation report I deduct a further period of 1 year leaving a balance of 4½ years.

I note from the reports before me as confirmed by your lawyer Lupeuluiva that there has been a traditional ifoga rendered in this matter. There has also been a penalty paid to the village council by your family on your behalf. It is noted in the report that part of the ifoga involved a fine mat or a large ietoga known as the "ie o le faamagaloga". And that this was presented by the village to the deceaseds wife. It is further noted that your family helped with the lauava and a contribution to that part of the burial ceremony. For all these matters a further deduction of 1 year is appropriate reducing the penalty to 3½ years in prison.

There are no further deductions you are eligible for. For this matter you will be convicted and sentenced to 3½ years in prison.

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