Police v Leala [2014] WSSC 25 (29 January 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Leala [2014] WSSC 25

Case name: Police v Leala

Citation: [2014] WSSC 25

Decision date: 29 January 2014

Parties: Police and Sione Leala

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1718/13, S1955/13

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Vaai

On appeal from:

Order: (Sentence)

Representation:
Rexona Titi-Reti for prosecution
Ameperosa Roma for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D:

SIONE LEALA male of Toamua

Defendant

Counsel: Rexona Titi-Reti for prosecution

Ameperosa Roma for defendant

Sentence: 29 January 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. At the conclusion of the defended hearing on the 19^th December 2013, the defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm pursuant to section 119 (2) Crimes Act 2013. In entering the conviction the court accepted submissions by counsel for the prosecution that although the defendant originally acted in self defence he went beyond the necessary boundaries of self defence and in doing so he caused injuries to the complaint. The injuries consisted of a bleeding nose and bruises to the shoulders.

The facts

2. Both the defendant and the female complainant are members of the Vaitele Latter Day Saints Church. On the day prior to the day of the offending, the complainant and the defendant’s mother in law had an argument during which the complaint uttered negative and offending remarks allegedly made by the defendant against his mother in law. Naturally the mother in law questioned the defendant when she saw him the same day. He denied making such remarks.
3. The following day the defendant drove his mother in law to the church meeting. He did not intend to attend the meeting. He saw the complainant sitting inside the open house and decided to question her about the false, malicious gossip. The complainant was sitting next to her sister. The complainant saw the defendant approaching her. She got agitated when the defendant commenced to question her and an argument developed which the complainant’s sister joined.
4. Popoai Uelese who was sitting close to the complainant told the court she grabbed the complainant when the complainant punched the defendant. The complainant’s sister joined. A fight ensued during which the complainant fell to the ground and she was seen bleeding from the nose. The defendant was seen delivering more than one punch. He was angry.
5. The defendant is a 30year old married man with two young children. He is portrayed in the pre-sentence report as a well educated young man, a hard working family man. He has always been in steady employment. The testimonial from Bishop Hunt of the Apia Samoa Stake Latter Day Saints Church testifies to the defendant’s dedication to his church obligations.

Prosecution Submissions

6. The prosecution submits that a term of imprisonment with a commencement point of 12 months should be considered given the age of the female complainant who was 50 years at the time, the need for deterrence, the deliberate intentional assault and the defendant’s previous conviction for assault in 2010. It is also submitted that there are no mitigating factors.

Discussion

7. It is true that the defendant could have avoided the confrontation and the subsequent commotion if he had walked away when the complainant started to get abusive and aggressive. But it cannot be ignored he was with his mother in law and he wanted to prove to his mother in law he did not utter the malicious gossip made by the complainant. Instead of apologising to the defendant, both the complainant and her sister started to get aggressive and attacked the defendant.
8. Counsel for the prosecution acknowledged during her submissions that the defendant originally acted in self defence. Which follows that when the defendant approached the complainant, he wanted to sort out the lies uttered by the complainant. But she obviously did not want her apparent propensity to utter malicious gossip exposed in the presence of other church members.
   
9. It was probably for the same reason that the complainant and her sister exaggerated their accounts of the commotion during their testimonies in their attempt to convince the court that the defendant was aggressive in his approach and started the assault.
10. Despite what has been said above, the defendant was obviously angry and became aggressive after the complainant threw the first punch. He had to be restrained by those present at the meeting from assaulting the complainant.
11. Neither the defence nor the prosecution told the court of the details and the penalty imposed for the assault charge in 2010 for which the defendant was convicted.
12. An apology was made to the complainant by the defendant and has been accepted. They attend the same church. The injuries were not serious, no medical assistance was sought.
13. Resorting to violence when one is angry must be discouraged; it is a common feature in our society to engage and use violence when one is violent, a feature which must be met with stern measure.
14. Although a custodial sentence is not warranted the sentence to be imposed must nonetheless be a significant one to convey society’s denunciation of violence, and to deter the defendant and other like minded people.
15. The defendant is convicted and fined $1,000 payable forthwith in default 3 months imprisonment.
    

JUSTICE VAAI