Police v Sauma [2015] WSSC 24 (23 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sauma [2015] WSSC 24

Case name:	Police v Sauma
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 24
Decision date:	23 March 2015
Parties:
	POLICE (prosecution) v FARANISISI aka SISI aka ULISESE SAUMA (accused) male of Alamagoto
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S417/15-S420/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- The accused is sentenced to 12 months supervision. - The accused is warned not to appear in the dock again for if he does, there may be no other chance for him but to go to prison.
Representation:	L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	actual bodily harm with intent – armed with a dangerous weapon – maximum penalty – early guilty plea – sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013s.119 Police Offences Ordinance 1961 s.25 (1)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S417/15-S420/15

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

FARANISISI aka SISI aka ULISESE SAUMA male of Alamagoto.
Accused

Counsel:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 23 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused Faranisisi Sauma of Alamagoto appears for sentence on one charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.119 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a stone, contrary to s.25 (1) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment. To both charges, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. The accused, his wife, and six month baby child live at Alamagoto. On Friday night 30 January 2015 around 10:30pm, the accused was drinking alcohol with some of his friends when he heard his child crying. When the baby continued to cry for a short while the accused went inside the house to see what was happening to his child. He found that only his child was crying but its mother was nowhere to be seen. So the accused went to look for his wife at the house of the victim next door. The victim and the accused’s wife are best friends.
3. At the victim’s house, the accused was told by the victim that his wife was not at her (victim’s) house. This made the accused angry as he thought the victim was hiding his wife from him. The accused then picked up a stone and punched the victim’s head causing the victim to fall down. The victim was taken to the hospital the same night where a laceration to her head was given three stitches.
4. The accused is 22 years old and likewise the victim. He is a first offender and the testimonial from his mother shows that he had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. His family has apologised to the victim and her family and this matter has been reconciled. He has also pleaded guilty to the charges against him at the earliest opportunity.
5. Having given careful consideration to the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the accused as offender, I have decided to accept the recommendation by the probation service for the accused to be given a second chance while he is still a young man with a young family with his future still before him. The accused is sentenced to 12 months supervision. I warn the accused not to appear in the dock again for if he does, there may be no other chance for him but to go to prison.

Honourable Chief Justice