Police v Pu'eleo [2012] WSSC 76 (16 April 2012)

Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Pu’eleo [2012] WSSC 76

Case name: Police v Pu’eleo

Citation: [2012] WSSC 76

Decision date: 16 April 2012

Parties: Police v Tupu Petelo Pu’eleo, male of Leulumoega-tuai

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
T Toailoa 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

TUPU PETELO PU’ELEO male of Leulumoega-tuai.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms T Toailoa for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 16 April 2012

S E N T E N C E

The summary of facts which the defendant has accepted states that he is a 24 year old single male of Leulumoega-tuai. He is an unemployed carpenter in between jobs and renders support to his aiga by working on the plantation and on a fishing boat. The victim is a 19 year old male from the village of Afega who works as a labourer on a cattle plantation.

On the evening in question of Saturday 18 February 2012 the victim and a cousin were drinking at the victims brothers house at Leulumoega. The victims brother is a “faiava” living at his wifes family at Leulumoega. During the drinking session the defendant and a friend turned up and it appears bummed some cigarettes off the victim. The victim gave them cigarettes and the two left. While the summary of facts does not refer to this in any detail I am certain that within this encounter were sown the seeds of what was to occur.

At about 8:00 pm the victim went to sleep in the bedroom of the brothers house. The brother and cousin continued drinking and after they finished their last bottle they began cleaning up. While they were thus engaged the defendants friend turned up again and the brother and the friend walked to the main road. There the brother was assaulted as the defendants friend pinned him to the ground. The cousin heard the brother cry out for assistance and went to his aid and fought with the defendants friend.

While all this was happening the summary relates that the defendant armed with a rock entered the brothers house and hit the sleeping victim in the face. Witnesses saw the defendant flee the bedroom. The victims brother and cousin returned to the house to find the victim injured and unconscious. The victim was bleeding from the face and his nose appeared to be broken. He was rushed to hospital where he was treated and detained for five days.

The victims medical report indicates that he suffered lacerations to the upper and lower lips of his mouth. He was also bleeding from his gums and had a laceration across his nose. His nose was indeed fractured. These are severe injuries and are to be expected considering that the defendants assault involved the use of a rock.

The defendant was subsequently apprehended and interviewed by the police and he admitted to assaulting the victim using a rock. The defendant was charged with grievous bodily harm and he has pleaded guilty to that charge. The defendant told the probation office that he assaulted the victim because the victim was drunk and was walking along the main road of their village late at night shouting and swearing. However there is no evidence of that in the police summary of facts. And it is hard to reconcile with the fact that the defendant assaulted the victim not on the main road but while he was asleep inside the brothers house. What is abundantly clear is at the time both the defendant and victim were under the influence of alcohol. But alcohol is no excuse or justification for anything.

Tupu you face an extremely serious charge it carries a 7 year maximum penalty of imprisonment. Penalties for this sort of attack in previous cases range from 12 months to 3 plus years in prison. These sentences are aimed at deterring offenders both actual and potential from engaging in this sort of drunken behaviour. Behaviour which we see far too often in our country.

The defendant has sought the courts leniency but in view of the seriousness of the assault and the surrounding circumstances this cannot be granted. This defendant used a rock not his fist. By doing that he took the violence to another level. And he used the rock to strike not some other part of the body but the face of the victim. It is miraculous that no worse injury was occasioned to the victim. I have seen homicides committed in this way. The victim was unarmed and was sleeping. Helpless to protect himself. There is no evidence the assault was provoked by the victim who had nothing to do with what was occurring on the main road between the defendants friend and the victims brother. The assault caused serious and undoubtedly painful injuries possibly some permanent scarring according to the victim impact report. No ifoga has been carried out or apology rendered to the victim or to his family based on the documents before the court.

Taking into account all relevant circumstances including the fact Tupu that you are a first offender who has pleaded guilty, you will be convicted and sentenced in this matter to 2½ years in prison. Any remand in custody time the defendant may have served is to be deducted.

JUSTICE NELSON