Police v Koria [2013] WSSC 52 (2 July 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Koria [2013] WSSC 52

Case name: Police v Koria

Citation: [2013] WSSC 52

Decision date: 02 July 2013
Parties:
POLICE v GRAHAM KORIA, male of Tanugamanono.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
O Tagaloa 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

GRAHAM KORIA, male of Tanugamanono.

Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 02 July 2013

SENTENCE

This defendant has pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assault on a girl under 16 years of age. The defendant is a 38 year old male married with three children. He is the husband of the complainants older sister. In other words the complainant is his sister-in-law. At the time of the offending she was 13 years of age and living with the defendant and her sister. Because this is a sexual offending case involving a young girl the usual suppression order will issue prohibiting publication of the details of the complainant girl including her village of residence.

When the police summary of facts was read to the defendant he disputed several essential portions thereof. This resulted in the prosecution having to call the complainant as a witness. At the end of her evidence I explained to the unrepresented defendant the options available to him. In particular that he was not compelled or required to give evidence unless he wished to do so. He chose to testify. At the end of that evidence he said that he accepted he had done these things as alleged by the complainant. But that he did so because she tempted him by walking around naked when he was in the house and by wearing inappropriate clothing. He said that these actions “faatosina ai lona mafaufau”.

The complainants evidence confirmed the three incident of indecent assault. One occurring at night when the complainant was asleep in the sitting room with her younger brother. When the defendant came to her in the middle of the night and touched her private parts through her clothing. And asked her if he could ejaculate in her mouth. She chased him away.

She also related another incident that occurred again at night while she was asleep. When he touched her private parts and offered money to perform oral sex on her. Again she rebuffed him. She also referred to an incident early this year. When she was having a shower she came out of the bath and the defendant asked her to take off her towel. She refused but the defendant took off his lavalava and showed her his private parts. She also related how he started kissing her neck and sucking the upper part of her breasts.

It is clear from these facts that the defendant was infatuated by the young girl. And that it led him to indecently assaulting her in the manner she described. Inappropriate behaviour towards a young girl by a mature man 25 years her senior. His offending is aggravated by the fact that he is the husband of the girls older sister and that she was living in their household under his care and control.

I do not for one minute accept what the defendant says about the young girl walking around naked. There is no evidence of that before me except the defendants. But even if the young girl was somehow inappropriate in her behaviour he is still 25 years older than her and should know better.

For his actions this defendant now faces a maximum penalty of 7 years per charge. His actions have also had consequences in the family which is now split. According to the probation office pre-sentence report his wife and children have been expelled by the complainants father. Even though they are innocent of wrong doing.

The seriousness of what you did requires a deterrent sentence of imprisonment. To mark the denunciation of your conduct by our society and as a message to you and to older men about inappropriate behaviour with underage females. Especially those concerning young girls living within their family.

An appropriate start point considering all the circumstances of this matter in particular that there was a low level of violence involved in the offending, a start point that applies is 3 years in prison. For your guilty plea you are entitled only to a limited deduction because you challenged the summary of facts with no good reason and that necessitated the complainant being called to give evidence and recount these unpleasant events. But I recognize Graham that your guilty plea means some saving of the courts limited resources and time. For that I will therefore deduct 10% from your sentence. That is a period of 3.6 months which I will round off to 4 months. That leaves a balance of 32 months in prison.

The probation office pre-sentence report refers to your previous good record. You worked to support the complainant and her brother who were both at school. You were also supporting your wife and children. You are spoken well of by your wife who described you as a good hard working husband and who expressed surprise at your being involved in this sort of matter. Your good character is also evidenced by the fact that this is your first offence and you have not previously being in trouble with the law. For all those factors I will make a further deduction from your sentence Graham of 6 months. That leaves a balance of 26 months in prison. You do not qualify for any other deductions.

For this matter you will be convicted and sentenced to 26 months in respect of all three charges. But your time in custody is to be deducted from that period.

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

JUSTICE NELSON