Police v Epati [2013] WSSC 142 (11 November 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Epati [2013] WSSC 142

Case name:	Police v Epati
Citation:	[2013] WSSC 142
Decision date:	11 November 2013
Parties:	POLICE and PUAATOLO SETEFANO EPATI, male of Vaiala and Vaivase uta
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation:	F Lagaaia for prosecution M V Peteru for defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

PUAATOLO SETEFANO EPATI, male of Vaiala and Vaivase uta.
Defendant

Counsel: F Lagaaia for prosecution
M V Peteru for defendant
Sentence: 11 November 2013

SENTENCE

1. After a defended hearing I had little difficulty finding the defendant guilty of indecently assaulting his 16½ year old female relative. A female who was at the time living with the defendant and other members of the family. And in respect of whom a prohibition against publication of details order has already issued.
2. The incident occurred in March of this year. And it was repeated by the defendant two months later in May of this year. The first time it was only the defendant and the complainant who were in the defendants house. The indecent assault consisting of the defendant groping the girls breasts and rubbing other parts of her lower body. The complainant had come to the defendants house to bring some food for him at his request. Because the defendant is an elderly man he is in fact turning 75 years old Christmas eve this year.
3. The complainant was usually the one who took the defendant his food. She lived with her mother in a house behind the defendant. The complainant reported this first incident of misbehaviour to defendants wife and to an aunty but nothing was done about it. The second incident in May 2013 also involved the defendant groping the complainants breasts lower body and private part. This time he was seen by the complainants younger sibling and a next door neighbour who was alerted by the children to what the defendant was doing. It was the neighbour who called the police. Who came and got the defendant.
4. The evidence and police case against the defendant was strong. There was no basis upon which he could have or should have disputed these two charges. And he continues to protest his innocence as evidenced by what he told the probation office when interviewed for his pre-sentence report. His continuation of denial of responsibility does not assist his predicament. It is in his favour that he has a clean police record. And he has throughout his life not shirked his family and other responsibilities. He has worked the land to meet his obligations. And has lived a good and active existence. It is extremely unfortunate that in the twilight of his years he should be sitting in a dock convicted of crimes such as this.
5. I have been given a report saying his wife has breast cancer and she has pleaded that he be given another chance as he is the family bread winner. However at 75 years of age I doubt the defendants ability to continue to support and care for his aiga. In any event these factors cannot avoid the inevitable they only mitigate its length. Sexual assault by a 75 year old man on a 16 year old female family relative is a sad situation. It is frowned on in our culture and indeed in many cultures.
6. No victim impact report has been filed but I have no doubt the offending has had an impact on the 16 year old complainant. Who was found to be crying at the end of both indecent assaults. The culture of sexual abuse of young females by older mature males is becoming an epidemic in our community. This plus the requirement to hold defendants accountable for their actions and to express society displeasure at such behaviour has led in the past and will continue to lead in the future to the court issuing deterrent sentences. Sexual assaults of young girls by older males will not be tolerated. Offenders can expect little leniency.
7. The maximum for each charge against you Puaatolo is 5 years in prison. Considering all the circumstances of your case a start point of 3 years is appropriate. However you are entitled to certain deductions in mitigation and these have been referred to by your counsel. Firstly to reflect your good background of service to your family to your village and your clean police record. And the fact that for 75 years you have led a good life and been a useful member of the community. For those factors Puaatolo I make a deduction of one (1) year from your sentence leaving a balance of 2 years in prison. There has been no reconciliation in this matter because you continue to deny your wrong doing. No deduction for that. You did not plead guilty to this matter. You elected to enter instead a fruitless not guilty plea and send this matter to trial. That was a futile and pointless exercise. No deduction for that. However you are 75 years of age and prison will be hard on you. I believe some deduction should therefore be made for your advanced age. In respect of that I will deduct 6 months from the balance of your sentence leaving 18 months in prison.
8. In respect of each of these charges you will be convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison Puaatolo. But terms are to be served concurrent and your time in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.
   

JUSTICE NELSON