Police v Peters [2015] WSSC 20 (13 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Peters [2015] WSSC 20

Case name:	Police v Peters
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 20
Decision date:	13 March 2015
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) v SPARKY PETERS (accused) male of Vailoa, Faleata.
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S2413/14, S2434/14-S2438/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Sentenced to 7 months supervision and as a special condition of his term of supervision he is to attend the anger management programme conducted by the probation service.
Representation:	F Lagaaia for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	causing actual bodily harm with intent – assault – maximum penalty – nature of the assault – provoked – favourable testimonials – sentence – term of supervision
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013(s.119(1))
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2413/14, S2434/14-S2438/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

SPARKY PETERS male of Vailoa, Faleata.
Accused

Counsel:
F Lagaaia for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 13 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused Sparky Peters is 36 years of age and is from the village of Vailoa, Faleata. He appears for sentence on one 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 and one charge of assault, contrary to s.123 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment. The accused pleaded guilty to both charges.

The offending

2. According to what appears from the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service that he was at home when his son returned from the shop crying and told him that he had been assaulted by one of the men drinking alcohol in the house next door. This was on 11 August 2014 at around 7pm as shown from the prosecution’s summary of facts confirmed by the accused.
3. The accused became angry, picked up his rifle, and went to the house next door where he found his younger brother Alfred Peters (Alfred) and his two friends Eletise Tanielu (Eletise) and Junior Samuelu (Junior) drinking alcohol. The accused demanded who had threatened his son.
4. He then struck Eletise’s face with the barrel of the rifle and then continued to hit Eletise’s head with the handle of the rifle. As a result, Eletise sustained a laceration and swelling on his left eye.
5. When Alfred intervened to stop the accused, the accused struck Alfred on the head with the butt of the rifle. As a result, Alfred sustained a swelling on the left side of his head.
6. The accused then turned to Junior and struck him with the butt of the rifle. He also punched Junior. As a result, Junior sustained minor injuries.

The accused

7. As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused is married with five children. Four of his children attend school but the youngest who is one year old stays at home. The accused is the sole breadwinner for his family.
8. The accused has apologised to Eletise and his younger brother Alfred. He has not been able to apologise to Junior as he does not know where Junior lives. The accused has reconciled with Alfred and this matter has been settled. The probation service have tried to contact Eletise but unsuccessful. I will accept what the accused told the probation service that he has apologised to Eletise.
9. Even though the accused has a previous conviction for possession of narcotics in 2010 for which he was fined and placed under probation for 6 months, favourable testimonials were provided to the probation service by the accused’s wife and the bishop of his church in relation to this offending. The pre-sentence report also shows that the accused completed his previous term of probation without any issues.
10. The accused has also pleaded guilty to the charges against him at the first reasonable opportunity.

Discussion

11. The accused is a first offender in terms of crimes which involve the use of violence. His only previous conviction in 2010 relates to a different type of offence. It also appears that the accused was provoked when his son came home crying and told him that he had been assaulted by one of the men who were drinking next door. There are also favourable testimonials about the accused from his wife and the bishop of his church. The accused has also apologised to his brother Alfred and the victim Eletise. I have also given consideration to the nature of the assault inflicted by the accused and the injuries sustained by the victims.
12. In all the circumstances, a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in this case.

The result

13. The accused is sentenced to 7 months supervision and as a special condition of his term of supervision he is to attend the anger management programme conducted by the probation service.

Honourable Chief Justice