SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Filipo [2014] WSSC 49

Case name: Police v Filipo
Citation: [2014] WSSC 49
Decision date: 29 August 2014
Parties: Police and Pea Filipo
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): S1174/14
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Justice Vaai
On appeal from:
Order: (Sentence)
Representation: 
F Lagaaia for prosecution
E Niumata 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
AND:
PEA FILIPO male of Solosolo
Defendant
Counsel:	F Lagaaia for prosecution
E Niumata for defendant

Sentence:	29 August 2014

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
1.	For the offence of assault causing grievous bodily harm, the defendant a 25 year old, pleaded guilty and he now appears for sentence.  The prosecution is seeking a custodial sentence to commence at three years.  Counsel for the defendant seeks a non custodial sentence.
2.	Both the victim (a 68 year old man), and the defendant are from the same village of Solosolo.  On the night of the incident the victim was sitting on the family grave infront of his house.  He was joined by three other village youths before the defendant who was drunk came along.  He was holding a beer bottle.  He opened his lavalava and danced to the music coming from the victim’s radio.
3.	Despite being told off by the victim the defendant became offensive, and made sexual remarks and even invited the victim to have sex with him.  Two of the youths left the scene.  The defendant continued harassing the victim and in the process did touch the victim.  In response the victim got up, struck the defendant and chased him away. 

4.	In retaliation the defendant struck the victim on the head with a rock and punched the victim on the face.  While the victim was lying unconscious on the ground the defendant delivered kicks to his face causing the victim to bleed from the face and nose.  
5.	The third youth who was at the scene intervened and took the defendant away.  The victim was taken to the Moto’otua hospital.  The examining doctor found multiple injuries to the victim’s face; there were lacerations to his left eye which was severely swollen, his left arm was also swollen and he was suffering from pain.
6.	Both counsels have cited cases in which this court has imposed sentences, for similar offending.  But the circumstances of cases involving willfully causing grievous injuries are so varied and diverse so that it is not possible to set a tariff for this kind of cases.  Sentences imposed have depended very much on the surrounding circumstances with previous cases providing a general guidance.
7.	There is no doubt that the attack by the defendant on the elderly victim was a serious unprovoked attack which was exacerbated by the delivery of the kicks to the face and upper part of the body while the victim was lying unconscious on the ground.  Intervention by a village youth stopped the assault.  
8.	The court accepts that the defendant has apologised to the victim and he and his family have been dealt severely by the village council.
9.	The circumstances surrounding the offending justifies a custodial sentence.  In assessing what should be the starting point the court has referred in paragraph 7 above to the circumstances surrounding the offending.  The court also bears in mind the long term effect of the injuries suffered by the elderly victim.
10.	Three years and six months is considered to be the appropriate starting point.  For his guilty plea I deduct 12 months.  For the apology and fine imposed by the village I deduct another 12 months.  He is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment less any time he spent in custody.

JUSTICE VAAI