Police v Pisone [2014] WSSC 82 (23 December 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pisone [2014] WSSC 82

Case name:	Police v Manuele Pisone
Citation:	[2014] WSSC 82
Decision date:	23 December 2014
Parties:	Police (Prosecution) and Manuele Pisone (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S1826/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	His Honour Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment - Time already spent in custody to be deducted from that sentence
Representation:	F Lagaaia for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:	causing actual bodily harm with intent -
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013
Cases cited:	Police v Tupe Jacob Niko [2013] WSSC 65
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S1826/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

MANUELE PISONE male of Vaigaga.

Accused

Counsel: F Lagaaia for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 23 December 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused Manuele Pisone, a 24 year old male of Vaigaga, appears for sentence on the charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. He had pleaded not guilty to the charge but was found guilty at trial.
2. What happened in this case was that the victim, a 30 year old male also of Vaigaga, was playing rugby with other boys of his village on the playground of the Vaigaga primary school in the late afternoon of Tuesday 8 April 2014 when the accused suddenly approached and assaulted him. The victim testified that the accused punched him first on the right side of his mouth and then on the front of his mouth causing him to lose a front tooth and to fall down unconscious. The boys who were playing rugby with the victim intervened and stopped the accused. The victim also sustained a swelling on his lips and an abrasion on his chin. The victim further testified that he does not know why the accused assaulted him.
3. It would appear from the evidence that the victim sustained four injuries from this assault. These are a lost tooth, swollen lips, abrasion on his chin, and loss of consciousness. Unconsciousness is an injury: see Police v Tupe Jacob Niko [2013] WSSC 65.
4. The accused is single. Police records show that he has previous convictions for throwing stones in 2007, throwing stones in 2008, uttering insulting words in 2009, receiving stolen properties in 2009, and assault in 2014 for which he was sentenced to four weeks imprisonment.
5. The pre-sentence report also shows that the accused when interviewed by the probation service maintained his innocence of the charge against him. This is not a sign of remorse on the part of the accused.
6. Having regard to the aggravating features of the offending which consisted of two punches to the victim’s mouth, the unprovoked nature of the assault on the victim, and the injuries suffered by the victim, I will take 6 months as the starting point for sentence. There is no mitigating feature in relation to the offending.
7. In relation to the accused as offender, his previous convictions, especially for throwing stones, uttering insulting words, and assault are particularly relevant. For previous convictions I will add on one month. This brings up the starting point for sentence to 7 months. I must point out that previous convictions are not an aggravating feature relating to the offending as suggested in the prosecution’s sentencing memorandum. That is because previous convictions relate to offences already committed in the past by the accused and not to the offending with which the accused is presently appearing for sentence. The relevance of previous convictions for sentencing purposes is to establish the character of an offender in order to assist in the determination of the penalty appropriate for a person of that character having regard to the offence for which he is appearing for sentence. Thus, previous convictions are a feature which is related to the offender and not to the offending for the purpose of setting the starting point for sentence.
8. There is no mitigating feature in relation to the offender so that there is no deduction from the starting point for sentence to be made on that basis.
9. The accused is therefore sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. Any time the accused has already spent in custody is to be deducted from that sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU