Police v Mamaia [2013] WSSC 27 (11 February 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Mamaia [2013] WSSC 27

Case name: Police v Mamaia

Citation: [2013] WSSC 27

Decision date: 11 February 2013

Parties: POLICE and LOINE MAMAIA aka SESE TITA’E MAMAIA, female of Laulii

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

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

LOINE MAMAIA aka SESE TITA’E MAMAIA, female of Laulii

Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 11 February 2013

SENTENCE

The police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted says as follows: she is 46 years of age from the villages of Laulii and Vaiala, married and works for a local security company. The complainant in this matter is a 46 year old female, also of the village of Laulii. She is the cousin of the defendant.

On Christmas Day 2012 at Laulii the defendant who was in an intoxicated condition went with a machete to the complainants house. The complainant and her mother were in their house having something to eat. Neither of them were aware that the defendant was armed only that the defendant had been drinking alcohol. The police summary says the complainants mother instructed the defendant to leave as she was drunk and come back later. The defendant did not comply. She walked up to the complainant and struck the complainant. The machete strike was aimed at the victims head. And that the victim tried to protect herself with her hands. The machete struck the victims hands and caused her to fall out from the house. People intervened and the victim was taken to hospital for medical attention.

Later that day the defendant was apprehended by the police and interviewed. During the interview she admitted to attempting to kill the victim. In the course of her statement she said:

“Ou tago loa i le naifi sogi ai loa ae ua laki le oso, ae ga ou sogia lava le ulu ae kali mai i lona lima ma lavea ai loa lona lima.”

As a result of these events the defendant has been charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder. That is what is contained in the police summary of facts which the defendant has accepted at the previous calling of this matter. But what the police summary of facts does not show but should have is the entire background leading up to the defendants actions. This background is referred to in the probation office pre-sentence report and shows the reason why the defendant lost her temper and self-control and attacked the complainant with the machete.

The court received no application from the prosecution to call evidence to rebut those mitigating matters and I am therefore going to proceed on the basis that the prosecution accepts what is stated the probation report. Prosecution are reminded that the court always expects full disclosure of the whole background to an offence and if the prosecution dispute what a defendant says, the appropriate application should be made to the court to call evidence.

The defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge of attempted murder and to a secondary charge of actual bodily harm. Both are serious. Attempted murder carries a maximum of life imprisonment, actual bodily harm 2 years.

The offending in this case is aggravated by the use of a machete on an unarmed victim. Our people too readily resort to weapons in times of anger and the courts penalties must soundly condemn such behaviour and be aimed at deterring this kind of action. The aiming of the machete at the victims head further aggravates the offending.

What the police summary of facts prepared and submitted by the prosecution also fails to show in detail is that this offender is not a first offender. She has a long list of relevant previous convictions which she admitted to at the last calling of this matter. They date back to 1986 and they are for offences of violence: 5 assaults, 2 wilful damage, 2 insulting words and 2 drunkenness. The last lot of 4 charges was in June 2010, and in respect of 2 of those 4 charges, she received a suspended sentence in the District Court for 2 years. Six months after that suspended sentence expired she committed the present offences. This history shows a consistent disregard by the defendant of the laws of the community. And shows a predilection towards violent behaviour especially when drunk as is the case with the present offending.

It is necessary now for the court to impose a strong deterrent sentence to teach this defendant and to show other potential offenders the fate of people who engage in this sort of behaviour. The prosecution in its sentencing memorandum cited a number of previous cases of attempted murder involving the use of weapons. But two of those cases relate to attempted murder by firearm which is not analogous to the present situation. In the other two cases involving attempted murder by use of a knife, sentences of 5 years were ultimately imposed on the defendants.

I deal firstly with the more serious charge of attempted murder. In the circumstances an appropriate start point is 8 years in prison. I will upgrade that to 10 years because of your record which is very bad. From that you are entitled to certain deductions according to law and I make these as follows: firstly for your guilty plea I will deduct 3 years; leaving a balance of 7 years. From that I will deduct a further 1 year to reflect the fact this matter has been reconciled within your aiga as confirmed to the court by the family matai at the last calling of this matter. That leaves a balance of 6 years. From that I will deduct a further 1 year to reflect the fact that there was provocation that led to your doing what you did to the complainant in this case. That leaves a balance of 5 years. There are no other qualifications that you are eligible for in reduction of sentence. On the attempted murder charge you will be convicted Loine and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.

In respect of the actual bodily harm charge this is not referred to for some reason in the prosecution summary of facts. But it should have been because on file is a charge of actual bodily harm laid by the police and pleaded guilty to by the defendant. This is just sloppy work on the part of the prosecution. This is as bad a case of actual bodily harm as one can get. This is a repeat violent offender under the influence of alcohol attacking an unarmed complainant with a machete. The only mitigating factors are referred to in the charge for attempted murder. The defendant on this charge of actual bodily harm will be convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. That term is to be served concurrent to the term for attempted murder.

.........................

JUSTICE NELSON