Police v Sefo [2015] WSSC 195 (24 December 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sefo [2015] WSSC 195

Case name:	Police v Sefo
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 195
Decision date:	24 December 2015
Parties:	POLICE v GEONITA aka GASOLOGA SEFO male of Fagalii and Fugalei
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S3248/15
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	Charge of causing intentional damage to property, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. Charge of assault, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. Charge of wilful trespass, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. Charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. Charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a stone the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. Charge of throwing stones, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. All sentences to be concurrent. Any time the accused has been in custody pending the outcome of this matter is to be deducted from her sentence.
Representation:	P Chang for prosecution
	Accused in person
Catchwords:	causing intentional damage to property - willful trespass - armed with a dangerous weapon - throwing stones – maximum penalties – penalty units – pleaded guilty – aggravating and mitigating features – totality principle of sentencing - sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.184 (2) (a) s.123 Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s.7 s.25 s.4 (h)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S3248/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

GEONITA aka GASOLOGA SEFO male of Fagalii and Fugalei.
Accused

Counsel:
P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 24 December 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charges

8. The accused Geonita Sefo, a 24 year old female of Fagalii, was jointly charged with a female co-accused who has persistently failed to appear and a warrant is still outstanding for her arrest. The accused now appears for sentence on one charge of causing intentional damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment; one charge of assault, contrary to s.123 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; one charge of willful trespass, contrary to s.7 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment; one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a stone, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; and one charge of throwing stones to the danger of a person contrary to s.4 (h) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 penalty units or 3 months imprisonment. When the charges were first called before this Court, both the accused and his co-accused did not appear and warrants were issued for their arrest. When the accused was arrested by the police, he pleaded guilty to the charges against him at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

9. The prosecution’s summary of facts which was accepted by the accused shows that on 13 June 2015 between 6:30pm and 7:00pm in the evening, the accused and her co-accused entered the premises of the victim who is a 24 year old Chinese national at Vaitele without permission. The victim came out and asked the accused and her co-accused as to why they were on his property and what they were doing on his land. As the victim had not seen the accused and her co-accused before, he called the police immediately on his phone.
10. While the victim was calling the police, the accused and her co-accused grabbed a piece of timber and a rock and started attacking the victim. While the victim was defending himself, the accused again hit the victim with the piece of timber. The piece of timber struck the victim on the right arm causing a bruise to the victim’s arm. The victim’s workers came out and helped to chase out the accused and her co-accused. When the accused and her co-accused got outside the gate of the victim’s property, the victim’s workers closed the gate and returned to their house.
11. As the victim and his workers were returning to their house, the accused and her co-accused started throwing stones at the victim’s house and broke the windows of the victim’s house. The accused and her co-accused also entered the gate of the victim’s property and destroyed the louvres of the victim’s new building under construction. The total value of the damage was $300.

The victim

12. The victim is a Chinese national employed as a builder by Hunan Construction at Vaitele. It is not clear what impact this offending has had on him. But I have no difficulty in concluding that he must have been affected psychologically apart from the damage worth $300 to his property.

The accused

13. The accused has previous convictions in June 2015 for drunkenness and uttering insulting words. She was convicted and fined a total of $150 for both offences. It appears that she has not repented.

The aggravating and mitigating features

14. The fact that this was an unprovoked assault by two offenders on the victim is an aggravating features of the offending. So was the use of a piece of timber to assault the victim resulting in a bruise to his right arm.
15. The persistent attack by the accused and her co-accused on the victim as well as the victim’s house after they had been chased out of the victim’s property is also an aggravating feature. So was the throwing of stones which damaged the louvres of the victim’s house.
16. The total value of $300 for the louvres of the victim’s house that were damaged is also an aggravating feature of this offending.
17. In relation to the accused as offender, her previous convictions in June 2015 for drunkenness and uttering insulting words is an aggravating feature relating to her as offender. However, her guilty plea entitles her to a discount.

Discussion

18. In passing sentence in this case, I have decided to apply the totality principle of sentencing given the number of charges against the accused. Having considered the aggravating features relating to this offending, I have decided to impose a custodial sentence. I will take 12 months as the starting point for sentence. I will not increase the sentence by reason of the accused’s previous convictions. However, those previous convictions mean that the accused is not entitled to any credit for previous good character. I will deduct 3 months for the accused’s early guilty plea. That reduces the starting point to 9 months.

Result

19. For the charge of causing intentional damage to property, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
20. For the charge of assault, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment.
21. For the charge of willful trespass, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
22. For the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
23. For the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a stone the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
24. For the charge of throwing stones, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
25. All sentences to be concurrent. Any time the accused has been in custody pending the outcome of this matter is to be deducted from her sentence.

CHIEF JUSTICE