Police v Aiesi [2014] WSSC 27 (22 April 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Aiesi, Pauli Latu and Teropika [2014] WSSC 27

Case name: Police v Aiesi, Pauli Latu and Teropika

Citation: [2014] WSSC 27

Decision date: 22 April 2014

Parties: Police and Tuleaga Aiesi, Tavita Pauli Latu, Talosaga Teropika

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1144, S1145, S1146/13

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Vaai

On appeal from:

Order: (Sentence)

Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
S Leung Wai for first defendant
A Roma for second defendant
T R. Faaiuaso for third 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:

TULEAGA AIESI male of Sapapalii

First Defendant

TAVITA PAULI LATU male of Sapapalii

Second Defendant

TALOSAGA TEROPIKA male of Sapapalii

Third Defendant

Counsel: L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution

S Leung Wai for first defendant

A Roma for second defendant

T R. Faaiuaso for third defendant

Sentence: 22 April 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. All three defendants entered pleas of guilty to the charge of manslaughter and two charges of causing actual bodily harm for which they now appear for sentence.
2. The incident which led to them being charged occurred at their village of Sapapalii Savaii on the evening of the 4^th June 2013 at about 8pm when they walked to the village pool after drinking a bottle of spirits and a few bottles of beer. Upon arrival at the village pool they saw the deceased and the other two victims Uatisone and Usufono drinking alcohol at the pool. Uatisone was swimming in the pool.
   
3. Defendant Tuleaga told the victims that alcohol was banned at the pool. The response by the deceased was not apologetic. It was somewhat challenging, it more or less told the defendants that it was none of their business. In any event the deceased and victim Usufono moved away from the pool and walked towards their car and as they did so the deceased swore at the defendants in response to a challenging query from one of the defendants. Both the deceased and Usufono then got inside the car.
4. Victim Uatisone who was swimming came out of the pool and as he walked towards the car, he was punched on the face by the defendant Tuleaga. Tuleaga was angry with Uatisone’s response to his request. When Uatisone fell to the ground he was punched and kicked by all the 3 defendants rendering him unconscious.
5. In the meantime the deceased and Usufono who were seated in the car tried to flee by driving away but the car got stuck in the mud. All the 3 defendants ran over to the car and assaulted the two men.
6. Usufono was dragged away from the car by defendants Tavita and Tuleaga. They assaulted Usufono using their fists and kicks to the face.
7. The deceased was trapped in the driver’s seat where the defendant Talosaga punched him in the face. Talosaga also grabbed a glass container of air freshener inside the car and struck the deceased’s face 5 times when the deceased was already unconscious. The other two defendants also delivered blows to the face of the deceased, when the deceased was already rendered unconscious.
8. All 3 defendants ceased in their assault when two village youths intervened.
9. The deceased was admitted to Tuasivi Hospital where he died the following day. Cause of death was traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage caused by blunt force trauma to the head.
10. Victim Usufono was also admitted to Tuasivi Hospital and was discharged a day later. He suffered injuries to his face and head.
11. Victim Uatisone also suffered injuries to his head and face. He also lost two teeth.
12. Both victims Uatisone and Usufono suffered physical pain for some considerable time after the attack.
13. All the 3 defendants claim that they were provoked by the conduct of the defendants in consuming alcohol at the pool, swimming naked at the pool and by the deceased’s swearing and provocative response when told of the village taboo concerning the village pool.
14. Both the victims and the defendants were heavily intoxicated on the night of the incident.

Defendant Tuleaga

15. Defendant Tuleaga is 33 years, single and is described in the pre-sentence report as a quiet obedient member of the village community. He has been looking after his elderly grandmother since his parents left to go overseas some years ago. He told the probation service that he is truly remorseful and prepared to take the blame. This is his first involvement with the law. The court accepts Tuleaga did not use any weapon during the assault.

Defendant Tavita

16. Defendant Tavita is also a single 24 year old from the village of Sapapalii. He is also described as remorseful and a reliable trustworthy member of his family, church and village. He is also a first offender. He did not use any weapon during the assault.

Defendant Talosaga

17. Defendant Talosaga a 24 year old with limited education is also spoken of by his church pastor and village pulenuu as a quiet co-operative member of the community. He is a first offender. By his own written statement to the police he revealed that he struck the deceased five times on the face with a heavy glass bottle of collogues when the deceased was already unconscious.

Discussion

18. The aims and objectives associated with sentencing are well established. Protection of the community is the primary function while at the same time exercising appropriate measure of mercy as the surrounding circumstances justify. There is also the applicability of those principles associated with retribution relative to the gravity of the criminal conduct, the degree of culpability of the accused, the impact of deterrence on the accused and the community and finally whether the considerations of reparation and rehabilitation should be factors to the applied in the sentencing process.
19. This was a case involving three assailants. There was no provocation in any normal sense. The defendants themselves in a way provoked the deceased causing the deceased to swear. There was a brief separation of time between the time the deceased uttered the so called challenged response and the time of the attack. There was also a separation of time between the time the deceased swore and the time of the attack. To that extent there was premeditation.
20. In any event the hostility caused by the deceased’s conduct is no excuse for the brutal beatings of the 3 victims which followed. This was not a case involving extreme and frightening provocation by the victims. All the 3 defendants were actively involved in the attack. Their blows were aimed at the face of the victims and their vicious attack only ceased when the villagers intervened.
21. The culpability of the offending is exacerbated by the following factors:
    • (i) Victim Uatisone was lying unconscious on the ground when the 3 defendants continued to punch and stomp on him.
    • (ii) Usufono and the deceased were attempting to flee from the scene of the attack when they were chased and attacked initially by Viliamu and Talosaga.
    • (iii) Usufono was punched and kicked by the defendants Tuleaga and Tavita while he was lying helpless and defenseless on the ground.
    • (iv) Tuleaga and Tavita joined in the assault of the deceased who was already unconscious from Talosaga’s attack.
    • (v) Talosaga struck the deceased 5 times with the heavy glass bottle knowing that the deceased was already unconscious.
    • (vi) The attack ceased only when others intervened.

Sentence

22. Taking into account the features of the offending in assessing the criminality of the conduct of the three defendants, I consider 12 years as the appropriate starting point for each of the defendant Tuleaga and Tavita concerning the crime of manslaughter. There are no aggravating features personal to each of them which requires the starting point of 12 years to be increased.
23. There are mitigating factors common to the two defendants which must result in the starting point of 12 years to be reduced. For their guilty pleas I deduct 2 years. For their previous good record and remorse I deduct 18 months. And for the village fines and ifoga I deduct 12 months.
24. For the offence of manslaughter each of the defendant Tuleaga and Tavita is sentenced to 7 years and 6 months less any time spent in custody.
25. For the defendant Talosaga I consider 13 years as the appropriate starting point. I deduct 2 years for his guilty plea, 18 months for his previous good record and remorse and 12 months for the village fine and ifoga. He will serve 8 years and 6 months imprisonment less any time spent in custody.
26. For each charge of causing actual bodily harm each of the three defendants is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for each charge to be served concurrently and concurrently also with the manslaughter charge.
    

JUSTICE VAAI