Police v Pelepesite [2015] WSSC 202 (17 November 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pelepesite [2015] WSSC 202

Case name:	Police v Pelepesite
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 202
Decision date:	17 November 2015
Parties:	Police (informant) v Vaoumu PELEPESITE, male of Samalaga & Vaimoso (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 the accused to 100 hours’ community service and 12 months’ supervision with the following special conditions: To attend ‘To Manatu’ program with Probation; To attend Men’s Advocacy Group with Samoa Victim Support; Not to re-offend within 12 months supervision; Any other programme as deemed appropriate by Probation.
Representation:	Ms Faafiti-Lo Tam & Ms Ioane for the Prosecution Defendant appears in Person
Catchwords:	Causing grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon – alcohol involved – first offender
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s 118(1); Police Offences Ordinance 1961 s 25;
Cases cited:	Police v Moli Lio Police v Pailate Amani
Summary of decision:

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

VAOUMU PELEPESITE, male of Samalaga & Vaimoso
Defendant

Counsel:
Ms Faafiti-Lo Tam & Ms Ioane for the Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Date: 17 November 2015

SENTENCE OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

The charge:

1. The accused is appearing for sentence after pleading guilty to two (2) offences: (i) Causing grievous bodily harm to Asa Fou, a 32 year old male of Seesee and Lepea. This offence attracts a penalty of no more than 10 years’ imprisonment under s 118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013; and (ii) Armed with a dangerous weapon under s 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, namely a glass cup which was used in the commission of the offence of grievous bodily harm. This offence attracts a penalty of no more than 12 months’ imprisonment.

The offending:

2. There was a drinking session whereby both the accused and the victim were present.
3. They left where they drank to walk to the front of a shop. The accused had a fight with a man named Faleata he was walking with. The accused said Faleata hit him with a stone, took off and he went after him. He could not catch him and he came back and the victim who is a cousin of this man Faleata swore at him.
4. He saw a glass cup next to the victim, picked it up and hit him on the forehead.

Aggravating/Mitigating Factors:

5. I find the following aggravating features to this offending:
   1. Use of a glass cup in the commission of the offence by the accused to hit the victim’s forehead.
   2. Injuries sustained by the victim were:
      • ∗ Crack on the forehead – 4 stitches;
      • ∗ Slash on the side of the right cheek – 8 stitches;
      • ∗ Slash under right eye – medicated cream to be applied.
6. The following mitigating features are to the accused favor:
   1. First offender – in his 29 years this is the first time he has appeared in Court and I give him credit for his previous good character.
   2. Apology – the victim said the accused has not apologised but he has nevertheless forgiven him. The accused told probation that he has apologised and also told the Court that he has sorted things out with the victim and the boys and the court believe him.
   3. Early pleas of guilty to both offences.

Comparable Cases:

7. The prosecution has provided four (4) cases as guidelines of the sort of sentences already imposed by the Court on this sort of offending.
8. The case of Police v Moli Lio is of similar circumstances with the present case should I decide on a non-custodial. Police v Pailate Amani will be considered should I consider custodial to be appropriate. Both will be considered but accordingly to the circumstances of the present case which means there will be variation in sentence.
9. The Court note that a lot of the assaults happened where alcohol is always involved especially amongst males between the ages of mid-20’s to late 30’s or early 40’s. There is seriously a need to address this issue.
10. I ask or challenge the authority of ‘alii ma faipule’ in the villages to do something about this. Imposing penalties of food and money will not address the issue of alcohol and violence but having alcohol related programs in villages will perhaps go some way in addressing this issue.
11. In the present case, a non-custodial sentence will be appropriate. I convict and sentence the accused to 100 hours’ community service and 12 months’ supervision with the following special conditions:
    1. To attend ‘To Manatu’ program with Probation;
    2. To attend Men’s Advocacy Group with Samoa Victim Support;
    3. Not to re-offend within 12 months supervision;
    4. Any other programme as deemed appropriate by Probation.
12. With the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, I have already taken this into account as an aggravating feature to the leading charge of causing injury. The accused is convicted and discharged of this offence.
13. Should you breach any of your conditions, rest assured that you will go to Tafaigata.
    

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