Police v Fuapauana [2012] WSSC 10 (20 March 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

ALELUIA FALEFATA FUAPAUNA
male of Fusi Safata and Vaitele-uta.
Accused

Counsel: E Niumata for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 20 March 2012

SENTENCE

1. The accused Aleluia Falefata Fuapauna is a 22 year old male from Vaitele-uta and Fusi, Safata. He has been charged with one count of robbery, one count of theft, one count of assault with intent to rob, and one count of causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to all those counts at the earliest opportunity.
   
2. There are two victims in this case, a 20 year old male and an 18 year old male. Both victims are New Zealand citizens who came to Samoa in January 2012 for work.
   
3. On Friday night 3 February 2012 at about 8:30pm, both victims were drinking at a bar at Matautu-tai when the accused joined their table. The accused befriended the victims and throughout the night all three of them consumed alcohol together. Later in the night, the accused invited the victims to join him at another bar. The victims agreed and all three of them left the bar at Matautu-tai by taxi. The accused directed the taxi driver to drop them off by the Mulivai bridge near the Samoa Tourism Authority. The three men came out of the taxi and walked along the seawall behind the Samoan Tourism Authority. The victims walked in front with the accused walking behind them. As the unsuspecting victims walked further along the seawall, the accused struck the 20 year old victim from behind with a rock. This victim fell to the concrete ground of the seawall. The accused then turned to the 18 year old victim and immediately struck him across the head using the same rock. This victim also fell to the concrete ground of the seawall. The accused then went through the pockets of the 18 year old victim and stole that victim's wallet valued at $102 which contained: (a) a New Zealand sim card valued at $59.50, $350 cash, eftpos cards, and a New Zealand drivers licence valued at $59.50. At that time, the 20 year old victim had managed to escape and sought assistance from the security guard on duty at the Samoa Tourism Authority. When the security guard came to the scene of this incident, the accused ran away to the main road, caught a taxi, and fled. The police apprehended the accused six days later.
   
4. The 18 year old victim was rushed to the hospital where his injuries were treated. The victim impact report on this victim shows that he sustained cuts to his cheek bone, abrasions to his right arm and left knee, and a severe infection on his knee causing a lot of pain when he walks. As a result, this victim has had to travel to New Zealand for medical attention which consisted of IV antibiotics treatments for three consecutive days. This victim is also now very cautious about going out.
   
5. The victim impact report on the 20 year old victim shows that this victim sustained cuts on his shoulders as well as cuts, bruises, and swelling on his face as a result of the assault on him. The victims have also been restricted in their outings as a safety measure against any future incidents.
   
6. Now, there are several aggravating features of the offending in this case. Evidently, the incident in this case involved a high degree of pre-meditation on the part of the accused. He must have learnt when he was drinking with the victims at Matautu-tai that the victims had just come to Samoa in January and were therefore unfamiliar with Samoa and the bars in Apia. He must also have known that the victims or one of them has money. So he deliberately deceived the victims by inviting them to join him at another bar when his real intention was to take the victims to an area where he could rob them. The unsuspecting victims did not realise that they were being misled into a trap until they were attacked from behind by the man who had befriended them at the bar at Matautu-tai. The use of a rock to hit each of the two accused on the head was a dangerous act obviously intended to knock out both victims so that the accused could steal their personal belongings. The extent of the injuries sustained by both victims, especially the 18 year old victim, as well as the total value of the properties stolen by the accused are other aggravating factors. So is the fact that the victims outings are now restricted. The accused also has a previous conviction in 2007 for theft.
   
7. There is no mitigating circumstance in relation to the offending. The only mitigating factor is the accused's plea of guilty which relates to him as the offender.
   
8. In setting a starting point for sentence, I will take the offence of robbery first which relates to the 18 year old victim. Having regard to the maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment for robbery, the need for deterrence in this type of offending, and the aggravating factors relating to the offending, I will take 3 years as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct one year for the accused's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. That leaves 2 years. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on the charge of robbery.
   
9. In respect of the charges of actual bodily harm and theft in relation to the 18 year old victim, the accused is convicted and sentenced on each of those charges to 9 months imprisonment. Those sentences are to be concurrent with the sentence of 2 years imprisonment on the robbery charge.
   
10. In respect of the charge of assault with intention to rob in relation to the 20 years old victim, I will take 9 months as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct 3 months for the accused's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. That leaves 6 months. The accused is sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on this charge.
    
11. The sentences of 2 years imprisonment and 6 months imprisonment are to be cumulative. The total sentence is therefore 2½ years imprisonment.
    

-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General Office, Apia, for prosecution
Accused in person