Police v Gabriel [2012] WSSC 18 (30 January 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

LEGALO GABRIEL male of Tuaefu.
Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi and FE Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 30 January 2012

SENTENCE

Following a defended hearing the defendant was convicted of the offence of robbery. It is apparent from the evidence I heard that the defendant had no real defence to the charge and no basis for denying it. Other than perhaps that he was under the influence of alcohol or he was drunk. But that is no defence to this or any other charge.

The commission of the robbery was confirmed by an independent eye witness who was at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. The victim impact report that has been filed indicates that the robbery has had a great effect on the complainant who is 78 years of age. The report refers to an examination by a doctor who confirmed "aafiaga o lo'u vae ma lo'u tuli ma nisi o vaega o lo'u tino ile taimi na osofai ai a'u e Legalo". It also refers to "e oo mai lava ile taimi lenei ua aafia lava lo'u tuli lea sa ou paū ai i lalo. Ua avea ma se ma'i tumau. E faalogoina lava le tiga pe a ou savali." The report further goes on to state "ua aafia fo'i la'u tamaoaiga i la'u faleoloa ma tupe sa leiloa uma i lea po ma ua lagona ai pea lo'u fefe i le tele o taimi pe a faasolo ina ua leva le po". These are some of the consequences of the offending by the defendant.

As stated in cases such as Police v Latu [2008] WSSC 59 the court notes there has been an increase in robbery cases involving the use of violence. Premeditated offences of robbery should be doubt with appropriately in order to protect society and to deter the defendant and others who may have an inclination towards this kind of conduct. Considerations of retribution and deterrence must accordingly take priority over rehabilitation or any other consideration. The message that must be sent out by the sentence in this and other like cases is that if you are going to rob vulnerable store owners of their property and used violence to commit that robbery then you can expect a stay at Tafaigata.

The offending in this case was planned by the drunken defendant and was carried out with a degree of force. He knocked the elderly complainant to the ground and ran off with the nights takings from the store. This has caused loss and damage to the complainant. Even though the defendant is said to be one of the complainants neighbours there is no evidence before me to indicate that there has been any formal apology of any sort rendered to the complainant.

The maximum penalty for robbery is 10 years in prison. The good book says that Thou shall love thy neighbour as thy self. What you did was completely contrary to that command.

An appropriate penalty for your offending would be in the vicinity of 12 months in prison. However Legalo because you are a first offender I will reduce that to 9 months in prison. You are convicted and sentence to 9 months in prison for your offence.

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