Police v Luatua [2015] WSSC 89 (28 August 2015)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Luatua [2015] WSSC 89

Case name:	Police v Luatua
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 89
Decision date:	28 August 2015
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) v FETALAIGA LUATUA male of Lotoso’a, Saleimoa (accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S360/15
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and fined $500
Representation:	L Sua-Mailo for prosecution P T Mulitalo for accused
Catchwords:	Intentionally causing damage – maximum penalty – sentence – aggravating features relating to the offending – provocation – exercised more self control – mitigating features relating to the offending – reparation – previous good character – apology – guilty plea – non custodial sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013,s.184 (2) (a)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S360/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

FETALAIGA LUATUA a male of Lotoso’a, Saleimoa.
Accused

Counsel:
L Sua-Mailo for prosecution
P T Mulitalo for accused

Sentence: 28 August 2015

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Fetalaiga Luatua appears for sentence on one charge of intentionally causing damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge, he initially pleaded not guilty but on the day of the hearing he vacated his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea.

The offending

2. As it appears from the prosecution’s summary of facts and the submissions of defence counsel, the victim who is a taxi driver was asked by his current girlfriend to go to Lotosoa, Saleimoa, to pick up the wife of the accused.
3. On this day, the accused’s wife was sick and the accused expected her to stay in bed. However, when the victim and his girlfriend arrived at the accused’s house, the accused’s wife got into the taxi. When the victim’s taxi was heading back to the road, the accused who was cutting trees with other men of the village in preparation for the opening of their new school building, saw his wife in the victim’s taxi when she should have been in bed as she was sick. The accused then stopped the victim’s taxi and told his wife to get out. She apparently refused. At that time, the accused could not control his anger and jealousy and struck the front door of the taxi twice with the machete he was using to cut trees. So angry and jealous was he that he also struck the rear of the tax with the machete. And when the victim got out of the taxi and ran into a nearby house, he followed calling out to the victim to come out. Fortunately for both the victim and the accused, the victim did not come out.
4. When the accused struck the taxi with his machete, the victim lost control of the taxi because of his fear for the accused. As a result, the taxi glided and hit a pile of rocks at a nearby house causing it to stop. This was the cause of the damage to the front bumper of the taxi.
5. Because of this incident, the two doors on the left side of the victim’s taxi were curved in. The body kit was smashed and the front bumper was damaged. The total damage was valued at about $1,000.

The victim

6. According to the victim impact report, the victim who is 31 years old is still angry at the accused because of what he had done. Not only had the victim paid for the costs of repairs but also suffered loss of income for almost a month while his taxi was undergoing repairs. The victim, however, confirms that the accused has paid him reparation of $700 for the repairs to his car.

The accused

7. The pre-sentence report shows that the accused is 39 years old. His wife is an ex-girlfriend of the victim. He finished school at Year 12. He has a good employment record with TV1 from 2000 up to now except for one year when he had to stay home because of family commitments.
8. The accused is a first offender. The testimonials from his paternal uncle shows the accused as a responsible, trustworthy, hardworking, and a good servant of their family. The accused is also the leader of the untitled men of the village. The testimonials from the accused’s church and the pulenuu of his village also show the accused as a person of good character who serves his church and village well.
9. The accused has paid reparation of $700 to the victim for the repairs to his taxi. He has also apologised to the victim. According to the pre-sentence report the apology was accepted but the victim impact report shows it was not. I will therefore treat the apology as neutral.

Provocation

10. It appears that there was an insignificant degree of premeditation on the part of the accused. He was at the relevant time cutting trees with other men of his village in preparation for the opening of their new school building. Then, unexpectedly, he saw his wife who was sick and supposed to be staying at home sitting inside the victim’s taxi. The accused’s wife had had a relationship with the victim in previous years before she married the accused. That appears to have been known to the accused. When the accused stopped the victim’s taxi and told his wife to come out, she refused. It was then that this offending occurred. I accept the submission by defence counsel that in the circumstances the accused was provoked He was angry and jealous and his actions were a spur of the moment reaction. The prosecution also accepts that in the circumstances the accused was provoked.

The aggravating features relating to the offending

(a) Use of a weapon

11. The use by the accused of a machete to inflict damage on the victim’s car is an aggravating feature relating to the offending.

(b) Extent of the damage

12. The extent of the damage to the victim’s car as a result of the accused’s actions is also an aggravating feature relating to the offending.

(c) Impact of offending

13. The impact of the offending on the victim is another aggravating feature relating to the offending.

The mitigating features relating to the offending

Provocation

14. The provocation under which the accused was acting at the material time is an important mitigating feature relating to the offending.

The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender

(a) Previous good character

15. The previous good character of the accused as shown from his character testimonials and first offender status is a mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender. This offending appears to be out of character.

(b) Reparation

16. The $700 reparation paid by the accused to the victim is also a mitigating feature relating to the accused as offender.

(c) Apology

17. Given the conflicting accounts given in the victim impact report and the pre-sentence report regarding the accused’s apology to the victim, I am not prepared to accept the accused’s apology as a mitigating feature relating to him as offender.

(d) Guilty plea

18. The belated guilty plea by the accused entitles him to some credit though not to the same extent as a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

19. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating features of this matter, I have decided not to impose a custodial sentence but to give the accused a second chance. Both the accused and his wife must learn from this incident if their marital relationship is to continue in a peaceful way. In a sense, it was the wife’s conduct that partly triggered this incident. The victim should also have not gone in his taxi and picked up the accused’s wife from the accused’s house given his previous relationship with the accused’s wife. It does not matter if it was the victim’s present girlfriend who had told him to go to the accused’s house and pick up the accused’s wife. The victim should have known better. On the other hand, the accused should have exercised more self control instead of reacting in the way he did.

Result

20. The accused is convicted and fined $500.
    

-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE