Police v Timu [2014] WSSC 58 (16 October 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Timu [2014] WSSC 58

Case name: Police v Timu

Citation: [2014] WSSC 58

Decision date: 16 October 2014

Parties: P O L I C E, Prosecution A N D FOU TIMU male of Faleasiu and Sataua, Savaii. Accused

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S2594/14

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo and B Faafiti-Lo Tam for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
intentionally causing actual bodily harm, aggravating and mitigating features, sentence

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 (s.119(1))

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2594/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

FOU TIMU male of Faleasiu and Sataua, Savaii.
Accused

Counsel:
L Su’a-Mailo and B Faafiti-Lo Tam for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 16 October 2014

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on the charge of intentionally causing actual bodily harm, contrary to s.119(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. At the material time, the accused who is 27 years old and the victim who is 61 years old were both employed as carpenters by the Shang Hai Construction Co Ltd. On Monday 1 September 2014, around 7am in the morning, the accused and the victim were at their employer’s construction site at Vailima. The victim had used the bathroom. When he came out, the accused asked him whether he had put water into the toilet. This must have angered the victim because he responded by swearing at the accused and saying that he was not stupid. The victim then walked away and continued to utter obscene language to the accused: “Koe ikiki ou alaku se’i i fafo lou faiai”. Suddenly, he felt a hard object hit him on the back. When he turned around he saw the accused holding a two-by-four (2x4) piece of timber. The accused swung the piece of timber twice at the victim and the victim put up his right arm to defend himself. As a result the victim’s right arm was injured and blood came out of the injury.

The accused

3. The pre-sentence report shows that the accused is 27 years old. He finished school at Year 12. He then took up various manual jobs until 2012 when he was employed in his present job from which he earns $180 a week. He is also married with two young children. He is responsible not only for looking after his wife and children but also his parents.
4. The accused is a first offender and the testimonials from his mother and the pastor of his church show that he had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. The accused’s mother told the probation service that her son’s offending is out of character. She assured the probation service that this would be the last time her son would appear before the Court. The accused also expressed deep regret to the probation service and vouched never to appear before the Court again
5. The accused also told the probation service that there has been no reconciliation between himself and the victim as the day of this incident was the last time he saw the victim and he does not know where the victim lives.
6. The accused has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.
   

Aggravating and mitigating features

7. The aggravating feature in relation to this offending is the use by the accused of a two-by-four (2x4) to strike the victim twice and the resulting injury to the victim’s right arm which was used to fend off the blows. The mitigating feature in relation to the offending is the provocation by the victim.
8. In relation to the accused as offender, the mitigating features are the accused’s first offender status combined with his good character prior to the commission of this offence, remorse on the part of the accused, and the plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

9. In weighing up the aggravating and mitigating features, I am of the view that a monetary fine would be the appropriate penalty in this case.
10. The accused is convicted and fined $200.
    

--------------------------------------

CHIEF JUSTICE