Police v Niko [2012] WSSC 8 (19 March 2012)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

FETI NIKO male of Taufusi
FAIGAME EMA SULUTIA SAOLOTOGA
female of Taufusi and Magiagi.
Accused

Counsel: T Toailoa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 19 March 2012

SENTENCE

1. The accused, who is a 20 year old male of Taufusi, is jointly charged with his de-facto wife with two counts of robbery. He has pleaded guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity but his wife has pleaded not guilty and her trial is pending. My sentencing remarks are therefore restricted to the accused so as not to prejudice the trial of his wife.
   
2. There are two victims in this case, a 16 year old female and a 29 year old female. On Tuesday night 21 February 2012 at around 1:30am, the victims were waiting for taxi in front of the Samoa Tourism Authority building at Mulivai when the accused and three other people jumped out of a hedge and assaulted the victims. As the 29 year old victim turned to flee, the accused grabbed her cell phone and took it. The accused then joined one of his co-assailants who was beating up the 16 year old victim. The accused punched that victim in her face causing her to fall down. As that victim was lying on the ground, the accused stole her cell phone and fled the scene. The summary of facts does not show the value of any of the two cell phones stolen by the accused from the victims. In the victim impact report on the 16 year old victim, that victim says she had bought her cell-phone for $35. In the victim impact report on the 29 year old victim, that victim says her cell phone is a brand new Samsung Touch Screen cell phone.
   
3. The victim impact report on the 16 year old victim also shows that she suffered extreme pain during the assault on her and it lasted for three days. Her neck was painful, her cheeks were swollen, and she also sustained a black eye when she was punched by the accused.
   
4. The victim impact report on the 24 year old victim shows that this victim did not sustain any physical injuries as she was able to dodge the accused's punch and fled from the scene to look for help.
   
5. This was clearly a pre-mediated attack on two unsuspecting victims with the intention of robbing them. The victims were outnumbered. Whilst the 29 year old victim was able to flee the scene and looked for help, the 16 year old victim was badly beaten up by the accused and at least one of his co-assailants.
   
6. This was also a joint attack which means that the accused and his co-assailants were acting in concert. Each of them would be responsible for the actions of the others and any injuries those others inflicted on the 16 year old victim.
   
7. The accused has quite a number of previous convictions for offences involving violence and dishonesty. He has been appearing before the Courts since 2003 when he was about 12 years old. Rehabilitative sentences imposed on him in the past have obviously not worked. The accused has not learnt his lesson.
   
8. Whilst the cell phone stolen by the accused from the 16 year old victim is worth $35, the brand new Samsung Touch Screen cell phone stolen from the 29 year old victim must be quite expensive.
   
9. The maximum penalty for robbery is 10 years imprisonment. There is also the need for deterrence in this type of offending. Robbery has also become too common. Having regard to these matters and the aggravating factors relating to the offending, I will take 3 years as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct one year for the accused's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. That leaves 2 years. I will add on 6 months for the accused's previous convictions. That brings up the sentence to 2½ years.
   
10. The accused is therefore sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment. Any time the accused has spent in custody pending the outcome of this matter is to be deducted from that sentence.
    

-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General Office, Apia, for prosecution