SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Matamua [2013] WSSC 56

Case name: Police v Matamua
Citation: [2013] WSSC 56
Decision date: 9 September 2013
Parties: Police (prosecution) and Steve Clinton Matamua, male of Lalovaea (accused).
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): S1401/13
Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL 
Place of delivery: MULINUU
Judge(s): Chief Justice Patu Falefatu Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
L Su’a and O Tagaloa for prosecution 
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Aggravating and Mitigating features
Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU
FILE NO: S1401/13

BETWEEN:	

P  O  L  I  C  E
Prosecution

A  N  D:

STEVE CLINTON MATAMUA male of Lalovaea.
Accused

Counsel: 	L Su’a and O Tagaloa for prosecution 
Accused in person 

Sentence:	10 September 2013  

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
The charge
1.	The accused appears for sentence on the charge of causing actual bodily with intent to do so, contrary to s.119(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.  He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2.	I need not for present purposes discuss the distinction between the offences of causing actual bodily harm with intent to do so, contrary to s.119(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment and the offence of causing actual bodily by assaulting another person or by acting with reckless disregard for the safety of another person, contrary to s.119(2) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.  The distinction between the offences must be understood.  This is in order to avoid charging a person under s.119(1) which carries a higher maximum penalty when such person should have been charged under s.119(2) which carries a lesser maximum penalty.
The offending
3.	It was on Saturday night 22 June 2013 at about 11:30pm while the victim and his son were hanging out on the road at Lalovaea when the accused who was drunk approached them swearing.  The young male youths of Lalovaea who were also hanging out in the same area called out to the accused to stop swearing.  The accused ignored the call from those youths and continued to swear.  As the accused got closer to the victim he asked the victim whether it was him who called out to him to stop swearing.  The victim replied it was the other boys.  The accused then swore at the victim and challenged him (“ Kefe. E te fia uluavale”)  The victim then told the accused that what he was doing was wrong.  The accused responded by slapping the victim on the left cheek.  The victim then stood up and went to his home, grabbed a piece of timber, and returned to the accused.  
4.	The victim then struck the accused with the piece of timber but missed.  The accused retaliated by punching the victim across the face causing him to fall down.  The youths who were around intervened and stopped the accused.  The victim’s son then arrived and took away his father.  The victim’s son then took his father to the hospital.
5.	It was found that the victim had sustained the following injuries: a bruise to his left eye, a cut to the top of his head, and a swelling on his nose.
6.	As a result of the cut to the top of the victim’s head, he suffered dizziness for a whole week.  He was also unable to go to his plantation or perform his usual domestic chores.
The accused 
7.	The accused is a 28 year old male of Lalovaea.  He is married with three young children.  He had had two jobs but at the time of this offence he was unemployed but stayed at home to look after his young children and family.  His wife works as a registered nurse and provides financial assistance for the family.  The accused is also a talented volleyball sportsman.
8.	The accused has previous convictions in 2003 for causing wilful damage, being armed with a dangerous weapon, and throwing stones for which he was placed on probation for 12 months.  In 2006, he was convicted of causing actual bodily harm for which he was again placed on probation for 15 months.  It is plain that probation has not worked for the accused.
9.	It is also plain that it was the accused who provoked this incident by swearing while drunk and then by swearing at the victim and challenging him and then slapping the victim on the left cheek.
10.	As it is shown from the pre-sentence report and the victim impact report, the accused and his mother have apologised to the victim and their apology was accepted.  
The victim 
11.	The victim is 57 years old.  He is married with five children.  He works on his plantation and performs domestic chores.  I have already referred to the injuries he sustained and the impact of the offending on him. 
Aggravating and mitigating features
12.	There are several aggravating features relating to the offending in this case.  First, it was the accused who started this incident by swearing while drunk.  As he got closer to the victim and his son, he asked the victim whether it was him who called out to stop swearing when the victim replied it was the other boys, the accused swore at the victim and challenged him (“Kefe. E ke fia ulavale”) .  He then slapped the victim on the left cheek.  This was highly provocative and arrogant.  Secondly, the victim is more than twice the age of the accused; he is 57 years but the accused is only 25 years.  Thirdly, are the injuries sustained by the victim and their impact on him.  There is no mitigating factor in relation to the offending.
13.	In relation to the accused as offender, the only aggravating feature is the accused’s previous convictions which all involve the use of violence as it was with the present offending.  The last of those previous convictions was in 2006 for causing actual bodily harm.  Probation has not worked for the accused.  The mitigating features personal to the accused are the apology he and his mother made to the victim which was accepted and his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The decision 
14.	Having regard to the need for deterrence in this type of case as well as the aggravating features of the offending, I will take 6 months as the starting point for sentence.  I add on one month for the accused previous convictions.  That increases the starting point to 7 months.  I will deduct one month for the apology by the accused and his mother which was accepted by the victim.  That decreases the sentence back to 6 months.  I will then deduct a 1/3 discount for the accused’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and that leaves 4 months.
15.	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment.  Any time the accused has already spent in custody is to be further deducted from that sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia for prosecution