Police v Faaletonu [2015] WSSC 87 (27 August 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faaletonu [2015] WSSC 87

Case name:	Police v Faaletonu
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 87
Decision date:	27 August 2015
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) v SELOTI FA’ALETONU a male of Leulumoega-tuai (accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolui
On appeal from:
Order:	- The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. This sentence is to be cumulative on the sentence imposed on the accused for his manslaughter conviction. - As the accused will be appearing before the District Court for breach of his parole conditions, a copy of this decision is to be given to the District Court.
Representation:	K Hogan and B Faafiti- Lo Tam for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2126/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

SELOTI FA’ALETONU a male of Leulumoega-tuai.
Accused

Counsel:
K Hogan and B Faafiti- Lo Tam for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 27 August 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Seloti Faaletonu of Leulumoega-tuai appears for sentence on one charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent to do so, contrary to s.119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. On Thursday night 18June 2015 around 8:30pm, the victim and his friend Sio were drinking alcohol and hanging out together out at the back of the house of Sio’s family at Leulumoega-tuai. Around that time, Sio’s sister called out to Sio to come and do a chore at the house. At that time, the accused who was on the road saw Sio and approached him. They then walked to the back of the house of Sio’s family where the victim was still drinking. The accused then joined in with Sio and the victim in drinking alcohol and hanging out together.
3. Apparently, the victim is a builder and the accused and Sio are carpenters working under his supervision.
4. A short time later, Sio again went to his family’s house to do a chore for his sister. When he returned to the victim and the accused, they were arguing about the remuneration for the construction work they were working on. Sio then intervened and tried to calm down the victim and the accused. Seeing that it was best to break up, Sio took the victim to the house where Sio’s sister was. At that time, the accused entered the house and punched the victim in the face. The accused then left. As a result of the accused’s punch, the victim sustained a swollen and bruised left eye.

The victim

5. The victim is 42 years old. He does construction work and the accused was working under his supervision. As shown from the victim impact report, the swelling and bruising to the victim’s left eye lasted for two to three weeks. The victim’s eye is now back to normal but there are times when he feels headaches. There is nothing to show how long this condition might last. The victim impact report also shows that there are no on-going psychological effects on the victim.
6. The victim impact report further shows that on the day following this incident, the accused’s parents went and apologised to the victim. On the evening of the same day, the accused also went and apologised to the victim. Both apologies were accepted and the victim has forgiven the accused.

The accused

7. As the pre-sentence report shows, the accused is 27 years old. He has a wife and one child who depend on him. At present, he is unemployed but works on his own plantation. The testimonials from the accused’s wife, the pastor of his church, and the pulenuu of his village show that the accused has good personal qualities. He is hardworking, dependable, and supportive of the activities of his church where he is a youth leader and choir member.
8. The pre-sentence report also shows that the accused was previously convicted of manslaughter and sentenced on 19 December 2011 to 4 years imprisonment. On 25 September 2014, he was released on parole. One of his parole conditions was to refrain from alcohol consumption while on parole. When the present offence was committed, the accused was still on parole. Apart from his previous conviction for manslaughter, the accused has no other previous conviction.
9. The accused and his parents have apologised to the victim and their apologies were accepted by the victim.

The aggravating features relating to the offending

(a) Harm to the victim

10. The swelling and bruising to the victim’s left eye which lasted for two to three weeks as a result of the assault by the accused is an aggravating feature relating to the offending.

(b) Occurrence of offending while accused on parole

11. The fact that the accused was still on parole on a manslaughter conviction with a special condition to refrain from alcohol consumption when this offending took place, is another aggravating feature relating to the offending.

(c) Premeditation

12. The level of premeditation in this offending must be low. The lapse of time between the verbal argument between the accused and the victim and the assault by the accused on the victim was very short. In addition, the offence with which the accused is charged is causing actual bodily harm with intent to do so. It is the intent to cause actual bodily harm that is the mens rea of the offence. It is difficult to see from the summary of facts any premeditation over and above the requisite intent to cause actual bodily harm in order to make premeditation an aggravating feature relating to this offending.

The aggravating features relating to the accused as offender

Previous conviction

13. The accused’s previous conviction for manslaughter in 2011 is an aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender. Both the offences of manslaughter and causing actual bodily harm with intent to do so involve the use of violence.

The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender

(a) Apologies

14. The apologies by the accused and his parents to the victim which were accepted is a mitigating feature personal to the accused as offender.

(b) Guilty plea

15. The accused’s guilty plea at the earliest opportunity is an important mitigating feature personal to the accused as offender.

Discussion

16. Having regard to the aggravating features relating to the offending, I will take 10 months as the starting point for sentence as suggested by the prosecution. I will add on 2 months for the accused’s previous manslaughter conviction. That takes the starting point up to 12 months. I will deduct 2 months for the apologies by the accused and his parents. That leaves 10 months. I will further deduct 1/3 or 3 months for the early guilty plea. That leaves 7 months.

Result

17. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. This sentence is to be cumulative on the sentence imposed on the accused for his manslaughter conviction.
18. As the accused will be appearing before the District Court for breach of his parole conditions, a copy of this decision is to be given to the District Court.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE