Police v Natano [2012] WSSC 89 (21 September 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Natano [2012] WSSC 89

Case name: Police v Natano

Citation: [2012] WSSC 89

Decision date: 21 September 2012

Parties:
THE POLICE v TALA MASEPA’U NATANO, male of Fusi Safotulafai

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
Mr P L T Masipa’u for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Police v Timoteo [2011] WSSC 65

Nepa v Attorney General [2010] WSCA 1

Police v Langkilde [2009] WSSC 93

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

TALA MASEPA’U NATANO, male of Fusi Safotulafai.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Mr P L T Masipa’u for defendant

Sentence: 21 September 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant appears for sentence on a charge of manslaughter. He is a 27 year old single male of Fusi Safotulafai, Savaii. Like most young Samoans of his age he worked the family plantation to support the family. He is well spoken of by his mother and his family as well as by his pastor and pulenuu. He was reasonably well educated and attended school up to Year 12.

The deceased is a 43 year old male also of the village of Fusi Safotulafai. He was married with children and was the bread winner of their family unit. As a result of his death the family has relocated to the mothers village of Salelologa together with the children.

A Coroners finding will issue in respect of the deceased Lalotoa Siaosi, male 43 years of age of Fusi Safotulafai. The Coroner finds that he died the night of Saturday 21 July 2012 from head wounds sustained in the assault by the defendant. The Coroner also certifies that alcohol was involved in this offending.

The police amended summary of facts which the defendant through his counsel has accepted states as follows: on 21 July 2012 the defendant travelled from Apia to Fusi where construction of a family house was being undertaken. The defendant joined in to assist. The deceased was part of the working group. The group completed their work around 5:00pm in the evening. Following that a family member gave the defendant $100 to buy some drinks for the workers. A quantity of vodka and other drinks were purchased. The party like so many drinking parties in this country began well. The deceased and the defendant both partook liberally.

Come the time for the village sa, the deceased who was older instructed the defendant and other young men to attend to policing the sa. The defendant and two other young men did so while the deceased remained behind and continued drinking. After the curfew, the defendant and his companions returned to the party and the party continued. At some stage the deceased began to annoy the defendant. He asked him several times if he was ready to “folafola” (announce) the village ava at a coming meeting of the village. The defendant kept giving him the same reply that he was ready. The deceased persisted and led to the defendant asking the deceased if he thought he was stupid. This shows how alcohol can make rational people behave in an irrational manner. A confrontation resulted and the deceased challenged the defendant to a fight. Others of the party intervened, calmed things down and took the deceased away.

Some time later the defendant followed the deceased and found him standing beside the road. The deceased was alone. The defendant questioned him resulting in the deceased punching the defendant with a rock. But the punch missed because the defendant dodged. This angered the defendant who then told the deceased “o le a fasi loa oe”. The defendant then punched the deceased causing him to fall down. The defendant took the rock away from the deceased and hit him on the mouth with it. There were no further blows delivered by the defendant who then left the scene leaving the deceased on the road.

Two to three hours later the deceaseds wife came searching for the deceased. And found him lying by the road. She took him to Malietoa Tanumafili II Hospital at Tuasivi where he was found to be deceased, dead on arrival. The admitting physician notes in his medical report: no heart rate, no pulse, no respiration, two open wounds noted right side of face, one at the lateral aspect or side of the mouth a deep wound measuring 2cm x 2cm x1cm in depth, another wound noted on the right temporal region of the right temple 2cm x 1cm x 1cm deep. Both wounds had rugged edges. He noted that x-ray showed no fractures to the head. As a result of these events the defendant was charged by the police and has pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The charge of manslaughter carries according to the law a maximum penalty of life in prison. As noted in many previous cases of this kind, circumstances of manslaughter are so varied and different resulting in the diversity of sentences imposed on offenders. In this case one significant circumstance is the leading role played by alcohol in the offending. The defendant and the deceased were both drinking. Given the defendants approximately one hour absence to police the village sa, the deceased probably had more to drink than the defendant. Description of alcohol involved indicates it to be of the cheap plastic bottle variety commonly sold in village stores in this country. As in Police v Timoteo [2011] WSSC 65 the court again repeats its concern about the uncontrolled sale of such alcohol in village stores. Selling such alcohol freely without restriction and without regulation in stores in villages is asking for trouble. More should be done to monitor and control and regulate the sale of such products in such places. Because the court sees everyday not only in this court but the District Court the consequence of excessive consumption of this sort of cheap freely available liquor. The problem in my respectful view needs to be attacked on many fronts perhaps by implementation of a National Alcohol Reform Policy. If we do nothing we will continue to see such cases in our courts and we will continue to see young men lose their lives unnecessarily. The future indeed is always in our own hands.

In respect of this case the most notable aggravating factor is the use by defendant of a rock to the deceaseds head. Our people unfortunately too readily resort to such weapons when they become angry. Witness the many instances we see and read about of the reckless stoning of houses, vehicles and people. We all know how lethal a rock is in the hands of an ordinary Samoan. It is as potent at short range as a pistol in the hands of a palagi.

The notional start point for manslaughter cases as approved by the Court of Appeal in Nepa [2010] WSCA 1 and as applied in other cases has been around the 8 years in prison mark. The court in Timoteo upgraded it from 8 to 9 years because the rock there was used to inflict head injuries. In the present case there is the added aggravating factor that the deceased had already been punched in the mouth by the defendant. The deceased was down on the ground. But the defendant took the attack up another level by grabbing the rock off the deceased and hitting him again in the mouth. A further aggravating factor existing here was the defendants action in after the assault, leaving the deceased unconscious on the road. No effort was made to render him aid or to advise some one. This was a careless and unloving act. The police summary says 2 to 3 hours went by before the deceased was discovered lying on the road by his wife. By which time any assistance was too late. As noted by the court in Police v Langkilde [2009] WSSC 93 this factor is entitled to be taken into consideration.

Taking all relevant matters and because of the aggravating factors of this case an appropriate start point for sentence is 10 years in prison. From that I am going to make deductions which you are entitled to by law and which your counsel has referred to. Firstly I deduct 3 years for your guilty plea because that has saved the courts time and resources. And expresses your remorse. Leaves a balance of 7 years. For the fact that you are a first offender and previously of good character I deduct period of 1 year leaving a balance of 6 years. There is no question that in this case Tala the acts of the deceased were provocative to you, they provoked you to what you did. To take account of that, I will deduct a further 1 year from your sentence leaving a balance of 5 years. The final deduction you are entitled to is the material before me indicates the customary ifoga was carried out by your family and accepted in accordance with our “tu and aganuu faasamoa” (custom and tradition). For that I will deduct a further 1 year period leaving a balance of 4 years.

In respect of this matter Tala you will be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. Any time in custody spent awaiting sentence to be deducted.

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