Police v Aiomata [2014] WSSC 62 (20 August 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Aiomata [2014] WSSC 62

Case name: Police v Aiomata

Citation: [2014] WSSC 62

Decision date: 20 August 2014

Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and AFEGOGO TAUAIMAA AIOMATA (accused) male of Sapoe Falealili

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1968/14

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
R Titi for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
sentence, causing bodily injured with intent, aggravating and mitigating features

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

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1968/14

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

AFEGOGO TAUAIMAA AIOMATA male of Sapoe Falealili.

Accused

Counsel

R Titi for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 20 August 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused appears for sentence on the charge of causing actual bodily injury with intent, contrary to s.119(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. The facts of this offending appear from the prosecution’s summary of facts and what the accused told the Court. This offending happened at Sapoe, Falealili, on Saturday evening 28 June 2014. The complainant, who is 55 years old, was about to leave his house to go to a shop when he heard people, including the accused’s son, being rowdy and swearing not far from his house. He went to those people and told them to stop swearing. The accused’s son told the complainant it was none of his business whereupon the complainant punched the accused’s son causing the latter to fall down.
3. The complainant then continued walking to the shop. When the accused’s son got up, he started yelling and swearing at the complainant. People at the scene tried to calm him down. However, he picked up stones and walked to the shop where the complainant had gone. When he got to the shop, he started throwing stones at the complainant. Some of the stones hit the counter of the shop. A scuffle then followed between the complainant and the accused’s son. Bystanders intervened and stopped the scuffle. Given the age of the complainant, the accused’s son was being extremely cheeky and arrogant.
4. Soon afterwards, the accused, who is 42 years old, arrived at the shop in his car with people of his family. They assaulted the complainant and the accused hit the complainant on the back of the head with a stone causing the complainant to fall down unconscious. The accused, his son, and other family members then left.
5. The accused told the Court that he did not know what had happened between his son and the complainant. All he knew was when his son appeared bleeding from his face and people told him that he had been beaten by the complainant. So he got in his car and went to look for the complainant. Even if this is true, it appears from the behaviour of the accused’s son that he was extremely cheeky to the victim after being rowdy and swearing near the complainant’s house. He should be taught good manners.
6. The complainant was then taken to the Poutasi District Hospital where he was medically treated. He was found to have sustained two lacerated wounds on the back of his head. One wound required four stitches and the other wound required three stitches.
7. Following this incident, the accused and his family made a ifoga to the complainant presenting a large fine mat and $500. The accused has also been penalised by the village council and he presented thirty cases of herrings for his penalty. The matter has therefore been settled and reconciled between the complainant and the accused.
8. Police records show that the accused is a first offender. Testimonials from the accused’s wife, his village pastor, and his village pulenuu also show that the accused had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. He does not smoke or drink. The accused is also a matai of his village and a father of seven children.
9. The aggravating features of this offending are: (a) the use of a stone by the accused to hit the back of the complainant’s head, (b) the fact that the accused brought with him people of his family to assault the complainant, and (c) the injuries sustained by the complainant including unconsciousness. The only mitigating feature relating to the offending is the element of provocation when the accused saw his son bleeding from the face and being told that his son was beaten by the complainant.
10. There is no aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender. But there are mitigating features pertaining to the accused. These are: (a) his previous good character prior to the commission of this offence, (b) the ifoga he and his family have performed and was accepted by the complainant so that this matter has been settled and reconciled, (c) the penalty imposed by the village council which has been paid, (d) the accused’s expression of remorse to the Court, and (e) the plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
11. Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating features, I have decided to suspend sentence for 6 months. If at the end of that time the accused does not re-offend, that is the end of this matter. But if he re-offends within that time, then he will be brought back to be sentenced on this matter.
    • 
      

....................................................

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney-General’s Office, Apia for prosecution