Police v Solia [2012] WSSC 78 (27 August 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Solia [2012] WSSC 78

Case name: Police v Solia

Citation: [2012] WSSC 78

Decision date: 27 August 2012

Parties:

POLICE v VAIOA SOLIA, male of Solosolo

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Mr A Roma for defendant

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:

VAIOA SOLIA, male of Solosolo.
Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Mr A Roma for defendant

Sentence: 27 August 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case is a 21 year old single male of the village of Solosolo and the probation office report says he made his living as a fisherman. He has previous convictions but counsel in this case quite properly agree that those are not relevant to the present offending.

The complainant in this matter at the relevant time was 14 years of age and still attending High School. The usual suppression order prohibiting publication of her details will issue. The police summary which has been accepted by the defendant through his counsel states that on Tuesday 29 May 2012 at around noon the complainant and the defendant met on the village bus for the first time. On Wednesday 30 May the next day also around noon they met again on the bus. On Thursday 31 May at about 11:00am they met for the third time when the complainant came across the defendant sitting on the seawall beside the bus terminal.

The parties walked to behind the Government Building to watch the canoe races that were on at the time after which they then went behind the Fish Market. There the activities became more amorous and resulted in the defendant fondling the complainants private part. He was able to persuade her to go home with him and when the pair arrived at his house they went into a bedroom undressed and had sexual intercourse. The complainant stayed the night and a further act of sex occurred at some stage during the night in the defendants house.

On the morning of Friday 01st of June the two caught the bus back to Apia and in town they parted ways. No doubt the girls family had by this stage became concerned about her whereabouts which eventually led to this matter being referred to the police.

As a result of all that the defendant has been charged with and pleaded guilty to two counts of carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with an underage female. There is no question that the acts of sex in this case were consensual and agreed to by the complainant. Witness the fact that she went willingly to the defendants home and spent the night with him. The defendants mistake is that this girl was only 14 years of age and I am sure he knew that she was underage as he is 7 years older than her. As has been stated many times in previous cases the law against carnal knowledge is there to protect young girls from older more experienced males. It is also there to protect young girls from their own inclinations until they are mature enough to make responsible choices.

As counsel for the defendant has rightly acknowledged the sentencing policy of this court continues to be that such offending because of its seriousness and prevalence will normally result in terms of imprisonment. The message that the court must continually send out to experienced and older men is stay away from underage females. If you want a female make sure she is over age.

I agree with counsel for the defendant there are no exceptional circumstances in this case calling for different treatment other than applying the normal policy of the court. But the defendant is a first offender who has pleaded guilty and saved the courts time he is entitled to credit for that. There has been no reconciliation in this matter, had there been the defendant would have also received credit for that. Probation office pre-sentence report indicates that no approach has been made in that regard.

I am sure your counsel has advised you the maximum penalty for these charges is for each charge 7 years imprisonment. You face two counts of carnal knowledge. An appropriate penalty considering all the circumstance of your offending Vaioa would be 9 months in prison. However because this is your first offence and you have pleaded guilty I reduce that to 7 months in prison. For these charges you will be sentenced as a total sentence to 7 months in prison. Your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that.

JUSTICE NELSON