Police v Tutogi [2012] WSSC 71 (9 July 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Tutogi [2012] WSSC 71

Case name: Police v Tutogi

Citation: [2012] WSSC 71

Decision date: 09 July 2012

Parties: POLICE v SE’ELA TUTOGI female of Nofoalii

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Informant

AND:

SE’ELA TUTOGI female of Nofoalii.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 09 July 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence on the offence of grievous bodily harm which carries a 7 year maximum jail term. She is before the court because she struck the complainants face with a piece of wood causing him to lose a tooth. The complainant is the husband of the defendants sister, in other words the complainant is the defendants brother-in -law.

According to the police summary of facts which the defendant admits the incident occurred when the complainant went to his wifes families home to sort out some marriage issues. Obviously things did not go as planned and got out of the hand. Leading to the complainant striking the defendant with the piece of wood followed by the defendants sons assaulting the complainant. The defendants sons have not yet been dealt with by the court but the court is only concerned today with the defendant and her part in this incident. Clearly this is a dispute that has arisen inside the lotoifale of this aiga

The complainant appeared before the court this morning and indicated that matters have been resolved within the family. And that he forgives the defendant for her actions. I note from the material before me and from speaking to the complainant himself that there appears to be no long term effect of the injury that he suffered.

The largest aggravating feature of this matter is the fact that the defendant used a piece of wood. I do not accept what is in the prosecution submission that the assault was necessarily unprovoked considering the circumstances in which it arose. The defendant is a first offender and she has pleaded guilty and saved the time of a judicial enquiry into this matter.

A fuafua atu i tulaga uma o lau mataupu Se’ela o le a le tuu atu se faaiuga faafalepuipui ia oe i le asō ona lou solitulafono. Ae aua aua e te toe faia se mea faapenei. A toe aumai oe i luma o le tulafono i se mea faapenei ia sili ona e sau sauni mo se faaiuga e sili le mamafa i lo le faaiuga lea o le a tuu atu ile asō. Ua manino ia tulaga tinā? (Defendant indicated she understood).

I am going to deal with the defendants case this way. She can either choose to pay a fine for this matter or she can choose if she cannot afford a fine then to undertake community service in lieu of a fine. If she chooses to pay a fine the sum of the fine is $350 and that is to be paid by 12:00 noon Friday, if she does not pay it by that day she will serve 6 months in jail. If she cannot afford the fine then she can do in lieu of the fine 100 hours of community service effective forthwith under the supervision of the probation office.

Ua e malamalama i faaiuga ia e lua ua tuu atu e te filifili mai ai? (defendant wishes to pay monetary fine). Ia lelei o le aofai o lau sala tupe e $350 e tatau ona totogi ae le’i taina le 12:00 o le Aso Faraile o le vaiaso nei. A iai se faaletonu e oo atu ile taimi lena e te le’i totogia e te nofo sala i le falepuipui mo le 6 masina.

JUSTICE NELSON