Police v Faamanu [2013] WSSC 90 (24 December 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Faamanu [2013] WSSC 90

Case name: Police v Faamanu

Citation: [2013] WSSC 90

Decision date: 24 December 2013

Parties: POLICE (Prosecution) and ETIMANI FAAMANU (accused) male of Vailoa and Samata, Savaii

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S2412/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Sentence, causing intentional damage,

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 s.184 (2) (a)

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2412/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

ETIMANI FAAMANU male of Vailoa and Samata Savaii

Accused

Counsel:

L Su’a – Mailo for Prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 24 December 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on one charge of causing intentional damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The Offending

2. This is another alcohol related offending. So many of the cases which involve violence or the use of force that had previously been within the jurisdiction of the District Court but are now within the jurisdiction of this Court since the enactment of the Crimes Act 2013 also involve the consumption of alcohol. This has become of alarming concern to this Court.
3. The accused is employed by the complainant who is 55 years old. He also stays at the complainant’s house at Vailoa to look after the complainant’s property at Vailoa. On Saturday night 12 October 2013, he was drinking bottles of Vailima beer with a friend on the complainant’s property. After their beers, the accused’s left. Not long afterwards, the complainant arrived. He was asked by the accused for an advance of his wages for White Sunday. It was an inappropriate time to make such a request of an employer as it was about the middle of the night and the accused was under the influence of alcohol. The complainant responded that he did not have any money. The complainant then left to return to his house at Alamagoto where he lives.
4. The accused being under the influence of alcohol and being angered by the complainant’s response then picked up a stone and threw it at the complainant’s truck which was parked on the Vailoa property as it had mechanical defects. The stone damaged the windshield of the truck. The accused said that the complainant had told him that the value of the windshield was $2,000. The victim impact report states that it was $3,000. Evidence was not called to resolve this discrepancy.
5. The complainant returned to Vailoa some time later and found the windshield of his truck being damaged. He reported the matter to the police. The accused admitted to the police that he threw a stone which damaged the windshield of the complainant’s truck.

The accused

6. The accused is 26 years of age. He had an average education having finished school at year 11. He now has a wife. He earns $80 a week from his current employment. He is also a first offender and the testimonials from his wife and from his village pastor show that he had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. He has already apologised to the complainant and his apology was accepted.
7. He is still being employed by the complainant but $20 is deducted every week from his wages to pay for the windshield of the complainant’s truck. The complainant has requested for the charge against the accused to be withdrawn.
8. The accused as earlier mentioned has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

9. Even though acting under the influence of alcohol is no excuse in law for an offence, it is evident that the influence of alcohol must have weakened or lessened the accused’s power of self control. As a result, when the accused’s employer arrived and the accused requested a wages advance and was declined, he threw a stone after his employer had left, which damaged the windshield of his employer’s truck. In all the circumstances, I have decided to impose a non-custodial sentence.

Result

10. The accused is sentenced to 9 months community service as directed by the probation service.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor

Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution