Police v Auvele [2014] WSSC 102 (29 September 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Auvele [2014] WSSC 102

Case name:	Police v Auvele
Citation:	[2014] WSSC 102
Decision date:	29 September 2014
Parties:	The Police (Prosecution) Keith Auvele (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Courthouse, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	Convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Your remand in custody time is to be deducted. All terms to be served concurrently. -
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution Unrepresented
Catchwords:	Grievous bodily harm – armed with dangerous weapon – causing injury – imprisonment term
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

KEITH AUVELE male of Lufilufi.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 29 September 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, two counts of causing injury with intent, one charge of armed with a dangerous weapon, namely stones and one count of throwing stones. The police summary of facts which he has admitted says he is a 30 year old male of Sanapu and Lufilufi. He was at the time of the offending in a de facto relationship with the first victim a female and he lived with her family at Lufilufi. She is 24 years old and was working at the National Hospital. The second victim is her father a 45 year old male, also of Lufilufi. He lived in the same family compound at Lufilufi with the defendant and the first victim. In other words the defendant was living at the family of his defacto.
2. On 19 March this year the defendant went to his defactos workplace to see her but she was busy and told him she would see him after work. After work she called his cell-phone and he told her he was drinking beer at a nearby shop. She went to the shop and found the defendant drunk and drinking beer with some friends. Eventually she managed to get him into a taxi and they went home to Lufilufi. In the taxi an argument began between the defendant and his defacto. The argument continued when they arrived home and it must have increased in intensity because the summary says that it woke up the de factos parents. They came out to see what was happening and told off the defendant for being ‘le mafaufau’. The parents then went back to their house but the argument between the defendant and his defacto did not stop.
3. The defendant picked up a rock and threw it at the victim hitting her on the left side of her head. He threw a second rock at the right side of her head. She was crying out for help and tried to run out of their faleoo but the defendant blocked her and pushed her down. While she was on the ground he picked up more rocks and threw them at her.
4. The commotion again woke up the de factos parents and the father came to stop the assault on his daughter. The father picked up a stick and hit the defendant to try and get him away from the girl. The defendant also threw a rock at the father which hit him on the head. The defendant eventually ran off into the bushes and the daughter and father were taken to the hospital for treatment of their injuries.
5. The medical report on the daughter indicates she had a 9 cm x 4 cm laceration on the left front side of her head. She was complaining of severe headache and dizziness and was drowsy and in great pain. It also noted multiple bruising around the base of her head and above the left and right ears. She was diagnosed with head injury and mild concussion. The father’s medical report noted he had a laceration to his head requiring two stitches.
6. It is clear from these facts this case is about domestic violence offending. Something the law frowns on and regards with great seriousness because of the prevalence of assaults of male partners on their female partners. The days of that is long gone and our country is now trying to stop this sort of behaviour. The defendants use of stones aggravates his offending and not just one stone, a number of stones. The injuries to the victim have caused a permanent scar to her front left forehead which she tries to conceal under her hair. According to the victim impact report she spent 4 days in hospital recovering from her injuries.
7. The following passages in the victim impact report are worth quoting because it is relevant: she says that the defendant is overly suspicious of her and rude, the defendant has always treated her this way, beating her especially after he has been drinking. She has now left the defendant because of this incident and wants nothing further to do with him.
8. There is no question the circumstances of the case are serious enough and warrant an imprisonment penalty on the defendant who is appearing before the court for a second time. His previous conviction is for an unrelated offence.

9. The maximum for the offence of grievous bodily injury with intent is 10 years in prison. I agree with the prosecution a 4 year start point for sentence is appropriate for your case and the only deduction that can be made from your sentence is for your guilty plea because you are not a first offender and there has been no reconciliation. Even though your guilty plea was entered on trial day I will give you full credit because it has saved the complainant having to appear in court and relive this incident. I therefore deduct one-quarter of your penalty, a period of 12 months, leaves a balance of 3 years in prison.
10. In respect of the charge of causing grievous bodily harm to your defacto you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. On the charge of causing her injury with intent convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison concurrent term. On the charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely stones you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison concurrent term. On the charge of throwing stones convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison concurrent term.
11. On the charge of causing injury with intent to your partners father I note his injuries were far less than his daughters and that matter involved only one stone. On that matter convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison again concurrent term. That means your total term Keith is 3 years in prison. Your remand in custody time is to be deducted.

JUSTICE NELSON