Police v Lee Chee [2014] WSSC 1 (10 January 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Lee Chee [2014] WSSC 1

Case name: Police v Lee Chee

Citation: [2014] WSSC 1

Decision date: 10 January 2014
Parties:
POLICE (Prosecution) and TELE’A LEE CHEE male of Levi, Saleimoa.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S2578/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
R Titi and J Nelson for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Sentence, intentionally causing damage, mitigating and aggravating features

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

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NOS: S2578/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

TELE’A LEE CHEE male of Levi Saleimoa

Accused

Counsel

R Titi and J Nelson for Prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 10 January 2014

S E N T E N C E

The charge

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

The offending

2. On Tuesday night 29 October 2013, the accused, his brother in law who is the father of the complainant, and a friend were drinking beer at the family home of the accused and his brother in law at Levi, Saleimoa. The three men were very drunk when the complainant arrived home in his taxi at around 10.00pm and parked his taxi inside the family garage. When the complainant entered his family’s home, the drunken accused asked him for the key of his taxi so he could drop his drunken friend home at Faleula which is a long distance from Levi, Saleimoa. Given the accused’s drunken condition, the distance between Levi, Saleimoa, and Faleula, and the fact that it was around 10.00pm at night, one can understand the complainant’s refusal to give the key of his taxi to the accused.
3. The accused then carried on drinking with his brother in law and his friend. After a while, the accused went to the main road and stopped a taxi in which he accompanied his friend to Faleula. After dropping off his friend at Faleula, the accused returned home by the same taxi. Upon arrival at his family’s home, he refused to pay the taxi fare. An argument then ensued between the taxi driver and the accused. The accused’s wife saw what was happening and she went over and paid the taxi fare.
4. The accused was then taken to the dining table for him to have his meal. However, he was in an angry mood. Against whom, it is not clear. He started swearing. His wife and mother tried to calm him down but he stood up, walked out of the house, picked up a stone, and threw it at the front windshield of the complainant’s taxi parked inside the family garage. The windshield was cracked but not completely shattered. The estimated value of the damage is around $600.

The accused

5. The accused is 42 years of age. He is married with three children. He finished school at Year 12. He is currently employed with a weekly wages of about $200. He is a brother of the complainant’s mother and they live together in their family at Levi, Saleimoa.
6. The actions by the accused in causing damage to the front windshield of the complainant’s vehicle were totally unprovoked. The complainant was entitled to refuse the accused’s request for the use of his taxi to take the accused’s drunken friend home at Faleula. The accused was very drunk and it would have been risky to allow him to drive his friend home in the complainants’ taxi, especially at it was getting late at night. The accused blames his actions and his anger on his drunkenness. But he does admit that that is no excuse for what he did.
7. The accused has previous traffic convictions in 2005 and 2006 for dangerous driving and overloading. This is the first time he has been convicted of an offence which included the use of violence resulting in damage to property. The testimonials from the sister of the accused, his church minister and village pulenu’u all show that the accused is a person of good character.
8. The accused has apologised to the complainant and this matter had been reconciled and settled within the family. The complainant has also written to the Court confirming that the damage to his vehicle has already been fixed and that he wants the charge against his uncle to be withdrawn.

The aggravating and mitigating features

9. The aggravating features in relation to the offending in this case are the value of the damage to the windshield of the complainant’s vehicle and the fact that the accused’s actions in causing that damage with a stone were totally unprovoked. In relation to the accused as offender, I will not consider his previous traffic convictions as an aggravating feature. They are not in the same class of offences as the criminal offence with which he is charged in this case. However, they show that he is not a person of previous good character and therefore is not entitled to any credit on that basis.
10. There is no mitigating feature in relation to the offending but there are mitigating features personal to the accused. These are the testimonials on his good character, his apology to the complainant, the fact that this matter has been reconciled and settled within family and that the complainant has forgiven him. The accused has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

11. I must say that too often cases of causing intentional damage to property that have come before this Court in the recent past have involved accused persons who were under the influence of alcohol. Instead of a drunken and angry accused inflicting bodily injury on the complainant, he would vent his anger by causing to the complainant’s vehicle, if the complainant has a vehicle. In my opinion, this is just as hurting and painful to the complainant as bodily injury. However, having regard to the aggravating and mitigating features of this case, I have decided to impose the following sentence.

Result

12. The accused is convicted and fined $300 to be payable within seven days, in default 3 months imprisonment. I must strongly warn the accused to mend his ways. If he appears before this Court again for a similar offence like the one in this case, then he is most likely to be sentenced directly to prison
    

-------------------------------------

CHIEF JUSTICE