Police v Enele [2015] WSSC 174 (22 October 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Enele [2015] WSSC 174

Case name:	Police v Enele
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 174
Decision date:	22 October 2015
Parties:	Police (Prosecution) v Filipo Enele male of Satapuala (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	I convict and sentence you to six months suspended sentence.
Representation:	Mr Lagaaia for the Prosecution Defendant in Person
Catchwords:	Being party of willful damage
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Ordinance 1961 s 113; s 113(1)(a); s 23(1)(b)(c);
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

FILIPO ENELE male of Satapuala
Defendant

Counsel:
Mr Lagaaia for the Prosecution
Defendant in Person

Date: 22 October 2015

ORAL SENTENCE OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. Filipo Enele, you now appear for sentence after pleading guilty to being party to the offence of wilful damage. This offence dates back to 14 August 2007, which means that the offence you are charged with is under the former Crimes Ordinance and not the recent Crimes Act 2013.
2. The offence of wilful damage under the Crimes Ordinance 1961 was section 113. You are therefore charged under section 113(1)(a) and section 23(1)(b)(c) which is the party to the offence provision of the Crimes Ordinance. The former offence of wilful damage, which you are charged under, carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3. The summary of facts has been read out by the Registrar and you have confirmed most of it except for paragraph 5 in which you are saying to the Court that you did not do anything or that you threw any rocks.
4. You are charged with party to the offence which at section 23(1)(b)(c) is that you, the accused, at subsection (b) does or omit an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence or (c) that you the accused abets or assists Luka or Pati or Efaraima, the other three men, in the commission of the offence of wilful damage.
5. Now from the summary of facts taking into account paragraph 5 that you disputed, section 23(1)(b) is (I think) more appropriate. That you, the accused, went with these other men saw what happened and did nothing. Your having done nothing is seen as aiding the three men in the commission of the offence of wilful damage.
6. You were at the time of the offence, in 2007, 19 years’ old. Now you are 27 years’ old and according to the probation report, you have a wife and two children.
7. The only aggravating feature of your offending is that you did not do or say anything to stop, or try to stop the other men from doing what they did. Come to think of it, this is probably a mitigating factor to the offending as well.
8. At the time of the offence in 2007 you were a first offender. Recently last year in 2014 you were sentenced for the offence of theft in the District Court. Nevertheless, I will take your status at the time of the commission of the offence in 2007 and view you as a first offender.
9. The mitigating factors personal to you, the accused, is your age at the time of the commission of the offence, you were 19 years’ old and you are a first offender and therefore was of good character prior to this offending
10. Having considered the circumstances of this offending and the role that you, the accused, played in the commission of this offence, I consider that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate. Therefore it would not be appropriate to apply any sentencing tariffs as in starting points. The criminality of this offending lies in the actions of the other four men who shot at and threw stones at the bulldozers.
11. Now, although you did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity in 2007, you nevertheless changed your plea when you appeared in Court on 11 September 2013.
12. I convict and sentence you to six months suspended sentence.
13. Filipo should you reoffend within the next six months rest assured the Court will not look kindly upon you. A custodial sentence is the most likely penalty that will be imposed upon you by the Court should you reoffend.
    

..............................
Justice Mata Tuatagaloa