Police v Liaina [2013] WSSC 43 (15 April 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Liaina [2013] WSSC 43

Case name: Police v Liaina

Citation: [2013] WSSC 43

Decision date: 15 April 2013

Parties:

POLICE v ANTHONY TIATIA LIAINA, male of Matautu-uta and Gataivai Savaii

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:
Police v Aukuso [2006] WSSC 59
Police v Sefo March 2008
Police v Samoa [2008] WSSC 68

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND

ANTHONY TIATIA LIAINA, male of Matautu-uta and Gataivai Savaii.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 15 April 2013

SENTENCE

The defendant is a talented individual. He has had the benefit of a good education. He graduated with an engineering certificate from Polytech and initially he worked as an engineer. He then received a religious calling and became a faifeau. In the course of that service he was posted to the village of the complainant. From what I have read he has served his flock in the village very well. He is married and has three children.

His life took a different turn however when the complainant who is a member of his congregation began pursuing the defendants spouse. A number of incidents occurred that eventually culminated in the defendant leaving the parish. He did so without confronting the complainant in any way. But it would appear the complainant was not deterred in his efforts and the incidents involving the defendants spouse and the complainant continued.

On the day in question the defendant went to pick up his wife from her place of work and bumped into the complainant. The sight obviously enraged him and caused him to lose his self control which has resulted in the defendants appearance before the court. Because he followed the complainant, pulled his car over to the side of the road, got out, opened his car boot and took out the steel rod that is used to wind down the spare tyre of the vehicle. The police summary of facts which the defendant has admitted indicates that he then chased the complainant.

When he caught up with him he assaulted him using the steel rod. His first blow to the complainants head was deflected by the complainants hand but his second blow struck the complainant in the mouth. Passers by intervened to assist the complainant leading to the defendant leaving the scene. The next day the defendant was arrested and charged by the police with causing grievous bodily harm. A charge to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.

The medical report before the court indicates that the complainants injuries were serious. He had lacerations to his upper and lower lips. He had fractures to his five upper teeth, two of which were beyond repair and had to be extracted. There were also fractures to his five lower teeth and two of those teeth had to be removed as well. The complainant was put on antibiotics and outpatient care for two weeks while his injuries healed. None of these injuries are surprising considering that what the defendant used was a metal rod.

The seriousness of the injuries and the use of a lethal weapon on an unarmed man means that an imprisonment penalty must be imposed in this case to mark the gravity of the offending. And to show that the defendants conduct even though he may have been acting under provocation is nevertheless unacceptable. An imprisonment penalty will also be in-line with previous sentences of this court involving armed first offenders who have pleaded guilty to causing severe injuries. These are cases like Police v Aukuso [2006] WSSC 59 where 2½ years was imposed, Police v Sefo in March 2008 where 2 years was imposed, Police v Samoa [2008] WSSC 68, 2 years and 6 months was imposed regarding a victim who lost seven teeth. There are numerous other similar decisions of the court.

The maximum for the offence of grievous bodily harm is a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years. It is a question now for the court to assess in the circumstances what is suitable for the offending committed by Anthony.

An appropriate start point for sentence is a period of 5 years in prison. But from that you are entitled to certain deductions Anthony which I will now make. You are a first offender and you have a clean record. There are good character references attached to the probation report that speak well of the defendant. For all those factors I will deduct one third of the sentence leaving a balance of 40 months. From that I will make a further deduction of 12 months to reflect that fact that the defendant is a first offender. Leaves a balance of 28 months.

O le faaiuga a le faamasinoga i le mataupu lenei o le a faapea ona faatulaga Anthony ona o lea e fesesea’i le faaliliuga e le Resitara o le mataupu lenei. O lea la o le a faasamoa atu le faaiuga ina ia e malamalama ma e silafia le mafuaaga o le faaiuga. O le fua amata e fua iai le mataupu lenei o le 5 tausaga ile falepuipui. Toese muamua le vaega e tasi vae tolu ona o lou ioe i le mataupu. Telē le taimi ua sefe ona o lau ioe. Ia atonu e atagia mai foi iina lou agaga salamo mo le mea lea na e faataunuuina i le sa aafia. Totoe ai lea o le paleni e 40 masina. Aveese mai le 40 masina lena le 12 masina ona o lea faatoa molia oe i luma o le faamasinoga, o loo iai foi ni references poo ni faamatalaga e tauleleia ai lau susuga o loo faapipii mai le ripoti o le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia. E aofia uma ai totonu o le 12 masina le vaega lena. Totoe ai le paleni e 28 masina.

I le silasila a le faamasinoga sa iai se tulaga ua faaosofia oe i lenei solitulafono ona pei ona o tulaga na ua e silafia lea sa aafia ai le tou aiga ma le sa aafia i le mataupu lenei. O le a aveese mo le tulaga lena le 6 masina mai le paleni lea e 28 masina. Totoe ai lea o le 22 masina e te nofosala ai ile toese. E leai nisi avega e mafai ona faamāmā ai le faaiuga a le faamasinoga.

O le faaiuga la o lau mataupu o le a e nofosala i le falepuipui mo le vaitaimi e 22 masina amata mai le asō, ae a faapea sa iai se taimi sa e nofo taofia ai e faatalitali le faaiuga a le faamasinoga e toesea mai le 22 masina le taimi lena. Ua e malamalama le mafuaaga o le faaiuga? (defendant indicated he understood).

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

JUSTICE NELSON