Police v Faafouina [2014] WSSC 110 (3 February 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faafouina [2014] WSSC 110

Case name:	Police v Faafouina
Citation:	[2014] WSSC 110
Decision date:	03 February 2014
Parties:	Police (Prosecution) Michael Toleafoa Faafouina, male of Faleatiu. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	For the offence of manslaughter you will be convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment but your time in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that.
Representation:	L Su’a-Mailo and G Nelson for prosecution R Schuster for defendant
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:

MICHAEL TOLEAFOA FAAFOUINA, male of Faleatiu.
Defendant

Counsel: L Su’a-Mailo and G Nelson for prosecution
R Schuster for defendant

Sentence: 03 February 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant is charged with the manslaughter of his father-in-law at Fasitoo-tai in the early morning hours of Thursday 02 May 2013. He is a 23 year old male of Faleatiu and is the husband of the deceaseds 17 year old daughter. The defendant and his wife have a young one year old son. At the time of this incident he was living at the wifes family at Fasitoo-tai working on the familys plantation to support his own immediate family as well as and the extended family.
2. On the Wednesday before this incident occurred the defendant got into an argument with his wife. According to the police summary of facts he assaulted her causing her to faint. He left the house leaving his wife with the women of her family. He went to the house of a relative of his at Fasitoo-tai an aunty and stayed there to cool off.
3. The deceased found out what the defendant had done to his daughter. He came home grabbed his sapelu and went looking for the defendant. He found the defendant at the defendants auntys house where the defendant was drinking niu vodka with a friend. He stood outside the house and threatened to sogi the defendant with a sapelu. But he did not do anything else and went back to his own house.
4. After the drinking session the defendant slept at the auntys place. He woke up in the early hours of Thursday morning and for some reason decided to go to his wifes house. It was still dark at the time. The police summary says this was about 3:00 am in the morning.
5. When he got to his wifes house it is stated that the deceased came out of the house holding a cellphone whose light was on. And it would seem he was carrying a sapelu. How the deceased knew or suspected that the defendant was in the area is not clear. But there is mentioned in the police summary of facts that both men were carrying cellphones. And that they rang each other that night and abused each other. The defendants cautioned statement to the police specifically states that when the deceased came out of the house he was carrying his cellphone. “Ou te vaai atu o loo mumu mai le moli o le telefoni”. The natural deduction to be made from that is that the defendant may have rung the deceaseds cellphone. There is no other explanation why the deceased would leave the house at 3:00 am in the morning and go outside carrying his cellphone and carrying his sapelu.
6. The defendants statement to the police says that this is then what happened:

“Ou te taunuu atu i luma o le fale ou te vaai atu o lo’o mumu mai le moli o le telefoni. Na ou vaai atu ua savali Alai i le auala ma ou solomuli mai loa ua ou lafi. Na ou vaai atu o loo alu atu Alai ma le sapelu pasi laititi lava le vaega sa ou lafi ai. E fetaui le faasaga ma i tua Alai ma le sapelu ae ou pueina loa ma maua pauu i lalo ma pau ese ai le sapelu. Na ou vaai atu ua oso i maa ma ou tago loa i le sapelu ma ta ai loa le vae, oso ese Alai ma pau i lalao ma ou toe taina ai loa le tauau, tiai loa le sapelu ae ou alu i le atoa.”

7. Of the defendants two strikes his first one to the deceaseds leg was the fatal blow. The medical report shows that this strike almost severed the lower part of the defendants right leg. It cut through muscle and tissue and left only the skin and tendons of the knee joint intact. The other strike delivered to the deceaseds shoulder was large but nowhere near as deep. As the defendant says in his cautioned statement after he delivered the strikes he threw away the sapelu and ran.
8. The police summary says that the deceased called out for help and his family responded. They rushed over to where he was calling from and found him sitting beside the road. They tried to help him as best they could but it was clear the deceased was losing a large amount of blood from his leg injury. The deceased did not make it to the hospital he died presumably from blood loss en-route to Leulumoega.
9. The deceased leaves behind a young and large family. The victim impact report from his wife of 21 years speaks of the terrible loss she and their eight children have suffered. And how difficult life is without the bread earner of the family. Also how difficult it is for her daughter the defendants wife.
10. The victims impact report says that the deceaseds wife and her children have now left Fasitoo and returned to the wifes own family at Samatau. It also confirms that a traditional ifoga has been carried out and accepted by the family of the deceased. That is the culturally correct thing to do but as we all know that does not erase the loss or hardship actions like this cause.
11. For the purposes of a Coroners finding I find that the deceased in this matter Alai Agalelei a male of Fasitoo-tai died as a result of an incident in the early morning hours of 02 May 2013 at Fasitoo-tai. Cause of death being blood loss from a leg wound inflicted by the defendant. This is the background to this matter and the charge of manslaughter to which the defendant has pleaded guilty.
12. As to the penalty for the defendants offence there is no question the seriousness of his actions and the use of a weapon must be met by an imprisonment penalty. Even the defendants lawyer accepts that and only seeks leniency for his client. Defence counsel also highlighted the factors in the defendants favour including his good background, his clean police record, his guilty plea when the charge against him was reduced from murder to manslaughter and the defendants remorse for his actions which have also impacted on the defendants own wife and child.
13. Considering all the circumstances of this matter I accept the prosecutions submission that a 12 year imprisonment start point is appropriate for the offending. That is appropriate when one takes into consideration the fact that the defendant had no reason to return to the family of his father-in-law that night. In fact he had every reason to stay away from an obviously angry father-in-law until things have cooled down and tempers have quieted. Instead of that he drank niu vodka with his friend and then went back that night. When he did so I am of the view that he rang the deceased and alerted him. Perhaps to lure the deceased out of the house or perhaps to see if the deceased was awake. I am not sure but I will take for sentencing purposes the more lenient view.
14. The defendants cautioned statement indicates that when the deceased came out he hid and waited until the deceased went past him then he jumped on him and used his sapelu to inflict injuries on him. Again the defendant had an opportunity to let the deceased go past and to retreat into the night. He chose not to in doing so he has sealed his own fate. It is also relevant that the first strike delivered by the defendant to the deceaseds leg was delivered with such force that it almost severed the leg. It is further relevant that after his strikes the defendant left him there. And made no effort to try to assist the deceased or have the family come and take him to hospital.
15. Because of these reasons a 12 year imprisonment penalty start point is appropriate for your case. However there are deductions that need to be made from that start point for the factors in your favour as pointed out and highlighted by your lawyer. Firstly for your guilty plea which has saved the courts time and resources and also shows some expression of remorse for what you did. I will deduct one-third of the term for your guilty plea a period of 4 years leaves a balance of 8 years. You have a good background of service to your family that is fully outlined in the probation report. You have a clean police record this is your first criminal offence. For those factors I will deduct 6 months from the balance of sentence leaves 7½ years. Ifoga and traditional reconciliation has been carried out on your behalf by your family. I give you credit for that I will deduct a further 6 months from the balance of your sentence leaves 7 years. There are no other factors or deductions that can be made in respect of your case Michael.
16. For the offence of manslaughter you will be convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment but your time in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that.
    

JUSTICE NELSON