Police v Sinapati [2015] WSSC 29 (31 March 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sinapati [2015] WSSC 29

Case name:	Police v Sinapati
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 29
Decision date:	31 March 2015
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) v CALVIN SINAPATI(accused) male of Moamoa and Matatufu, Lotofaga.
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S2537/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	;Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Accused is convicted and fined $200.
Representation:	F Lagaaia for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	causing actual bodily harm with intent – maximum penalty – early guilty plea – pre-meditation – good character prior to the commission of the offence - sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013s.119(1)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2537/14

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

CALVIN SINAPATI male of Moamoa and Matatufu, Lotofaga.
Accused

Counsel:
F Lagaaia for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 31 March 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Calvin Sinapati 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. To the charge, he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. As shown from the prosecution’s summary of facts, on the night of 22 August 2014 at around 8pm, the victim was drinking alcohol at Moamoa with friends. Around 11pm, the victim and one of his friends got inside the victim’s car and drove Moamoa towards Apia. On the way, they met up with the accused who was drinking with a friend at a bus shelter on the side of the road at Moamoa. The victim stopped his car and had a conversation with the accused. The victim and his friend then continued on. They picked up another friend from a different place and then drove on to Pinati’s restaurant in Apia to buy some takeaways. It was about 2am in the morning at that time.
3. The victim then drove back to Moamoa. On their way, the victim again stopped his car at where the accused and his friend were still drinking at the bus shelter on the side of the road. The accused then asked the victim about a previous physical altercation the victim had with the accused’s friend. This led to a verbal confrontation between the victim and the accused and the accused hit the victim’s mouth with a beer bottle. The victim was injured and blood was coming from his mouth. He was taken to the hospital the same night for treatment. The exact nature of the injury and the treatment given to the victim are not clear. I must say that in a case of assault, actual bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm, the nature of the injury alleged by the police to have been caused by the accused to the victim should be specified in the summary of facts.
4. The accused is a 36 year old male of Moamoa. He is married with four young children and is employed at a Tech Centre in Apia as an information technology personnel. He and the victim had been good mates. As shown from the pre-sentence report, the accused has apologised to the victim and the apology was accepted. This matter has been settled between the two of them and they are good mates again. They have since often meet on good terms at the school attended by their children.
5. The accused is a first offender and the testimonials from his wife, the pastor of his church, and the pulenuu of his village all show that he had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. He is also the sole provider for his young family.
6. There is little known about the victim except that he is 34 years old and married with six children. He is from the same village of Moamoa as the accused.
7. It appears that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the accused in this incident and that the consumption of alcohol was the primary cause of its occurrence. The matter has been settled between the victim and the accused and they are on good terms again.
8. In the circumstances, the accused is convicted and fined $200.
   

Honourable Chief Justice