Police v Mareko [2013] WSSC 97 (15 July 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Mareko [2013] WSSC 97

Case name: Police v Mareko

Citation: [2013] WSSC 97

Decision date: 15 July 2013
Parties:
POLICE v TAELASE MAREKO, male of Taufusi and Vaitele-fou

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
F E Niumata for prosecution

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:

TAELASE MAREKO, male of Taufusi and Vaitele-fou.
Defendant

Counsel: F E Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 15 July 2013

SENTENCE

The amended police summary of facts which the defendant accepts states as follows: he is a 23 year old male of Taufusi and Vaitele. He is in a defacto relationship with the complainant and they have two children. He runs his fathers business selling handicrafts. The complainant is his 21 year old defacto spouse also involved in the handicraft business of the family.

This incident occurred on Saturday 25 May 2013. When the defendant had an argument with the complainant at their market stall. During the course of the argument he punched her on the forehead causing a laceration. The police summary notes and the defendant accepts that when he punched her the complainant was holding their child. After punching her the defendant grabbed the child and left. The complainant was taken to hospital by other people and the doctors report notes that she was suffering from a “small superficial laceration about 1 cm in length midline of the forehead. Slightly swollen but no fractures detected.”

The defendant was accordingly apprehended and charged by the police with causing injury to his defacto. A charge which carries a maximum penalty in law of 7 years in prison. The defendant has pleaded guilty. He was also charged with common assault by the police. But as that charge is part and partial of the causing injury charge that charge is an unnecessary duplicate charge, it is dismissed.

So appearing for sentence this afternoon is a defendant who punched his defacto partner in the forehead. While this is a domestic violence offence I note that because it caused only a small superficial laceration that therefore not much force was used by the defendant. But because it is domestic violence offending it is still a serious offence.

Taelase the days of men assaulting their partners whether they are married partners or defacto partners are long gone. Any man who assaults his female partner is now subject to serious consequences as you will see from the fact that this offence carries a 7 year maximum prison penalty. In your case the offence is even more serious because you have a history of violent offending. Your record includes previous convictions for actual bodily harm and other like offences.

Those two factors mean that for this particular matter Taelase you must receive a prison term as a personal deterrence to you to teach you that if you do this that is what you will receive. And to send a message to other men of how grave the law regards this sort of behaviour towards their defacto spouses.

As I have stated to you there is a 7 year maximum penalty for this kind of offence. However taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the nature of the injury to the complainant a lengthy prison term is not required. I also take into account your apology made to the complainant and your guilty plea and also the supplementary victim impact report that has been filed where your defacto partner says she forgives you for what you did. And she is willing to take you back. Well that is her choice but let me tell you this young man. You touch her again I will lock you up and throw away the key.

Ua e malamalama lelei i le tulaga lena? (defendant said he understood). Aua e te mateia se faaiuga a le faamasinoga. Tele ou solitulafono muamua i ituaiga solitulafono faapenei Taelase. Ia o lea ua oo lou lima i le tou aiga, ia muta ii aua a toe aumai oe i se mea faapea. A toe fai sau ma lou nofo sauni i tulaga o le a oo ia oe. Ua e malamalama? (Defendant indicated he understood).

For this matter the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months in prison. His remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that. On his release from prison he is to be placed under the supervision of the probation office for a period of 12 months. Special conditions of his supervision: 75 hours community services; no alcohol for the period of his supervision; attend all rehabilitation programmes as required by the probation office and he is to report to the probation office and sign in with them at least twice a week.

Ia o tuutuuga faapitoa na o lou taimi faanofo vaavaaia Taelase. Masalo o isi tulaga o lau faanofo vaavaaia na ua e malamalama i le mea e masani ona fai. O le ofisa faanofo vaavaaia e faamalamalama atu ia oe. Ua e malamalama i le faaiuga o le mataupu lenei? Tolu masina lou taimi e te nofo falepuipui ai, toesea le taimi lea sa e taofia ai e faatalitali le faaiuga a le faamasinoga. A e magalo mai lou taimi falepuipui lena e 12 masina e te nofo vaavaaia ai i lalo o tuutuuga faapitoa ia ua faamalau atu.

E iai se mea e le’o manino ia oe Taelase? (Defendant apologised). O le tulaga e pito i sili ona aoga i lau faatoesega lena o le aua le toe faia. Faatino lau faatoesega lena i le aua le toe faia nei ituaiga solitulafono poo seisi foi solitulafono. Anusa o le a fiu le faamasinoga i le vaai so’o atu ia oe o molia mai oe i mataupu faapenei. Tu’u, e leai se lumana’i. O le a le matutua o lau fanau? (defendant indicates childrens ages). Ia tu’u i ou luma lau fanau i taimi uma pe a e mafaufau i nisi ituaiga solitulafono po’o le a e alu e te inu pia ma e onā faavalevalea solo. Mafaufau i lau fanau ma lou toalua. Ua e malamalama? (Defendant said yes).

.........................
JUSTICE NELSON