Police v Satini [2012] WSSC 118 (13 September 2012)

[THE NAMES OF THE COMPLAINANT, HER FAMILY AND HER VILLAGE ARE SUPPRESSED]

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Satini [2012] WSSC 118

Case name: Police v Satini Satini

Citation: [2012] WSSC 118

Decision date: 13 September 2012

Parties: POLICE (prosecution) and SATINI SATINI male of Malie

Hearing date(s): 16 – 17 August 2012

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): JUSTICE SLICER

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
P Chang and R Titi for prosecution
A Roma for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:
Crimes Ordinance 1961 s.47

Cases cited:
Police v Mikaele [2011] WSSC 153
Police v Filipo [2011] WSSC 127
Police v Luamanuvae [2012] WSSC 4
Police v Lole [2012] WSSC 27

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU
BETWEEN
POLICE
Prosecution
AND
SATINI SATINI male of Malie
Defendant

Counsel: P Chang and R Titi for the prosecution

A Roma for the defendant

Hearing: 16 – 17 August 2012

Sentencing Hearing: 30 August 2012

Sentence: 13 September 2012

Charges: Rape (x1) and Threat to Kill (x1)

SENTENCE OF SLICER J

1. Satini Satini was found guilty, by assessors, of the crime of rape, contrary to the Crimes Ordinance 1961 section 47. The assessors found him not guilty of the crime of threatening to kill.
2. On 11 January 2012, the defendant followed the complainant, aged 21, to a place on her family’s land where she was gathering firewood. He had asked her for a cigarette but was told that she did not smoke. He continued to follow her, asking her if he could help her collect the wood. She refused his offer.
3. He continued to follow her, grabbed her around the waist and dragged or carried her to an isolated place on adjoining land. He raped her using physical force. The young woman was newly married and had come to live in her husband’s village. Since she had not lived in that village for a long time she did not know the name of her assailant. Five days later she went with her sister-in-law and recognised the defendant sitting on a stone fence and found out his name.
4. The complainant told her husband who went to confront Satini, who told him not to jump to conclusions and should “make slow and clear inquiries about the name who had done this thing to (his) wife.”
5. The matter was reported to police on 17 January. On 18 January, the defendant was interviewed by police but made no admissions.
6. The victim impact report records that the victim states that ‘every time she sees the defendant (they live in the same village) she gets angry and said because of what he did to her’. Her husband is ashamed and ‘village people mock him for being stupid and not looking after his wife’. He has become overprotective of his wife and she is not allowed to go onto the plantation alone.
7. In the words of the report:

“The victim claims that she is always haunted by what has happened, every time she does her chores, she is always reminded of what the defendant did to her.”

8. The Court accepts the totality of the victim impact statement.
9. The defendant is aged 21 years. He has a prior conviction for burglary and, on 18 April 2012, sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. Due to a misunderstanding he was released from prison before the probation office could interview him. In order to assist the service, the Court granted bail so that he could be interviewed. It is for this reason only that he was not remanded in custody immediately following the assessors’ verdict of guilty.
10. The prosecution submits a commencing point of 10 years imprisonment. It relies on cases such as Mikaele [2011] WSSC 153, Filipo [2011] WSSC 127, Luamanuvae [2012] WSSC 4 and Lole [2012] WSSC 27 as a guide to consistency. In some of those cases, the victim was of young age and in some, had a more serious record or involved greater violence. Here, the Court accepts the prosecution’s commencing point of 10 years imprisonment. The rape was not preplanned nor did it occur within the safety of the victim’s home.
11. The pre sentence report records that Satini left school at the completion of Year 12 due to financial difficulties. He worked as a carpenter for one year, followed by three years employment as a security officer. He separated from his wife following his release from prison on 18 August 2012.
12. He is described by others as a hard working individual and a valuable and loyal member of his family.
13. He maintains his innocence and has made no attempt of reconciliation with the victim or her husband. He did not give evidence at trial and claimed to the probation service that he had been having an affair with the victim.
14. It would appear that this was a misunderstanding. His counsel stated, at the sentencing hearing, that the defendant had known or knew of the complainant since her arrival in the village, some months previous. The Court accepts that explanation. The Court also accepts that one of the defendant’s families went to the parents of the complainant’s family to apologise whilst the defendant was in custody. The defendant himself has made no apology.
15. The defendant’s counsel states as mitigating matters:
    • (1) that little weight should be given to his previous conviction for burglary since it differs significantly from a sexual crime, a matter taken into account by the prosecution;
    • (2) a difficult upbringing, given that his father left the family when he was 5 years old, and continues to reside abroad; and
    • (3) his good work record, especially since he was unable to proceed with tertiary education because of financial circumstances.
16. The defendant does not have the benefit of a guilty plea and has shown no remorse for his conduct or the harm done to the victim.
17. Nevertheless, the crime of rape warrants a significant sentence. An allowance of two years will be given because of the above matters, and the fact that since he has already experienced prison since in 2012, a long sentence might crush any prospect of reform.
18. A further allowance of 6 weeks will be given for the time spent in custody. He will be allowed the benefit of 2 years and 6 weeks, which for convenience will be rounded off as 2 months.
19. The sentence is that of 7 years and 10 months.

ORDERS:

(1) Satini Satini is convicted of the crime of Rape.
(2) Satini Satini is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 7 years and 10 months, such sentence to commence as and from 13 September 2012.
(3) The names of the complainant, her family and the village are suppressed.

..............................

(JUSTICE SLICER)