Police v Ioelu [2013] WSSC 129 (15 October 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Ioelu [2013] WSSC 129

Case name: Police v Ioelu

Citation: [2013] WSSC 129

Decision date: 15 October 2013

Parties: POLICE v TOVIO IOELU, male of Vaitele-fou and Papa Sataua

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
F E Niumata for prosecution

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

TOVIO IOELU, male of Vaitele-fou and Papa Sataua.
Defendant

Counsel: F E Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 15 October 2013

SENTENCE

1. The defendant appears for sentence on two charges one of aggravated robbery and one of causing injury. The police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted says he is 19 years of age but his probation report says in accordance with information he gave them that he is in fact 23 years of age. He is therefore being sentenced on the basis that he is 23 years old and he is from Vaitele-fou and Papa Sataua in Savaii. The victim is said to be Apete Tautalaga a 22 year old male of Vaivase and Taga in Savaii.
2. On Saturday 17 August at about 8:00 am in the morning the victim travelled to Nuu to visit some relatives. He met up with the defendant. Later that day the two of them began drinking at a faleoo belonging to the defendants neighbour. The drinking party was joined by other males of the area. When the alcohol finished the defendant asked the victim for some money to buy more beer. The victim told him he had no money left and anyway he had to go and visit relatives.
3. The victim then stood up and walked away from the drinking party. The defendant and his co-defendant followed. They caught up with him and the victim asked them to accompany him to his relatives house because he was drunk. The defendant and Vaeluaga agreed. But as the drunk men continued walking a disagreement broke out at which route to take. The disagreement reached a point where the defendant punched the victim on the chin and caused the victim to fall to the ground. The victim tried to get up a number of times but the defendant launched multiple kicks at his face and head. While he was doing this another defendant arrived on the scene and made a video recording of the assault.
4. After the assault was carried out by Tovio the men stole the victims two cell phones and the $70.00 he had in his pocket. They left the victim lying at the scene and he was only helped by people of the village who reported the matter to the police and who took the victim to the hospital.
5. The medical report of the victim indicates that he was suffering serious injuries. He was bleeding inside both eyes. He had lacerations to his lips and lacerations to the side of this tongue. The police apprehended the defendant in due course and have charged him with these two charges as a result of what the defendant did this Saturday.
6. I have seen the video recording that was made by your friend Tovio of your actions on the victim. It shows that your attack was quite deliberate and lasted a period of time. It showed that most of your kicks were delivered to the victim while he was on the ground. And were generally aimed at his head. It was a brutal attack on a person already lying on the ground no threat to you. A number of your kicks missed because you were so drunk. But a lot of them landed. The damage would have been much greater to the victims face and head if you had not been that drunk.
7. The defendant told the probation office that he has some history in relation to the victim. When the victim stayed with his family in 2009 at Vaitele he left taking some of the defendants personal belongings. But that Tovio is no reason for the retribution that you took on this day. And 2009 was a long time ago.
8. There is no question that the severity of your attack and its circumstances requires to be met by a prison term. The offence the police have charged you with of aggravated robbery carries a maximum of 14 years in prison. That should tell you how serious the charge is.
9. An appropriate start point considering all circumstances however is in my view 3 years in prison. From that will be deducted one-third of the term for your guilty plea which has saved the courts time. Leaves a balance of 2 years. From that will be deducted 6 months to reflect your good background Tovio and your clean police record. Leaves a balance of 18 months in prison. Having seen the video and listened to what happened I have come to the conclusion that there was some provocation offered to you by the victim which sparked this whole violent response by you. For that matter I will therefore make a further deduction of 6 months from the balance of your sentence. Leaving a balance of 12 months in prison. There are no other deductions Tovio that can be made for your matter.
10. You will be convicted on the charge of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 12 months in prison. But your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that term.
11. On the second charge of causing injury you will convicted and likewise sentenced to a term of 12 months in prison. But that term is to be served concurrent to your term for aggravated robbery.
    

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