Police v Faapuaa [2015] WSSC 97 (14 September 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faapuaa [2015] WSSC 97

Case name:	Police v Faapuaa
Citation:	[2015] WSSC 97
Decision date:	14 September 2015
Parties:	Police (prosecution) and Samia Tautai Faapuaa(defendant)
Hearing date(s):	27, 28 October 2014
File number(s):	S2198/14, S3429/14, S1963/14, S2200/14
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Vaai
On appeal from:	-
Order:	For each offence of attempted murder, the accused will serve 4 ½ years to be served concurrently. Any time spent in custody will be deducted.
Representation:	L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution S Wulf for defendant
Catchwords:	Attempted murder – unprovoked attack long lasting injury – personal circumstances – punishment – remorse and previous good character – custodial sentence.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SAMIA TAUTAI FAAPUAA male of Laulii
Defendant

Counsel:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
S Wulf for defendant

Sentence: 14 September 2015

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused was found guilty of two charges of attempted murder by a panel of assessors after a defended hearing.
2. His pleads of self defense were obviously not accepted by the assessors. The victims were the father and a son. The father and his son together with another son were working in their plantation which borders the plantation of the accused on the morning of the incident. The accused and his wife were also working in their plantation. The accused called out to the father and his two sons to get out of his land. The father who was a little confused about the call sat down with his back to where the accused was calling from. The accused approached the father while the father’s back was towards him. One of the sons called out to the father to watch the accused, and just when the father turned the accused was aiming a strike with a bush knife at the father. The father put up his hand to fend off the strike. The strike severed some of his fingers. The son Ualesi who was the second victim tried to intervene using a stick to save his father. Although the accused lost the knife during the ensuing struggle, he did regain the knife and tried to stab Ualesi on the neck while Ualesi was on the ground. Although the stab missed, it did cause a laceration to the neck of Ualesi. The accused then delivered what would have been a fatal blow to Ualesi’s head but this blow was intercepted by the father who put his hands in the path of the blow. The father’s right hand absorbed the blow causing severe long lasting injury which bled profusely.
3. In considering the culpability of the defendant’s offending, there are several factors which the court must consider. The first aggravating feature is that the accused was the instigator of the aggression. His anger was not provoked. Instead of talking to the father and his sons about the correct boundary, he armed himself with a knife, approached the victims with the purpose of using the knife to vent his anger. He continued to assault the father whose fingers were severed by the first blow. It was the intervention by the second victim that saved his father from other blows. Likewise the father who was already injured put his life in danger by absorbing the strike to his son’s face with his right hand. The assault only ended when the accused was overpowered and injured by the father and his son Ualesi. The victim Konelio was only 15 years of age at the time. He was forced to recall the horrific experience when he gave evidence due to the accused not guilty plea. His memories of the attack will be difficult to forget.
4. Now the accused is 50 years with children ranging from 40 years to 20 years old. Probation report has spoken about the reconciliation between the victim’s family and the accused through a family group conference which was also attended by the head matai of the family. Full unconditional, forgiveness was reached and both sides want to move forward.
5. The victims have sought and pleaded the court’s forgiveness and leniency on the accused. It is that atmosphere of reconciliation and forgiveness upon which the probation service has recommended a community based sentence. On the other hand, the prosecution having made reference to the several aggravating features have sought a custodial sentence to commence from 10 years.
6. Both the victims and the accused and their families should be commended for attempting to achieve restorative justice which will be accounted for in the sentencing process.
7. It must be said however, that it is important to have regard to the sentencing ranges and the general principles enunciated in the authorities for the purpose of consistency and parity.
8. The unprovoked attack by a supposedly mature village leader was severe and unnecessary. Instead of discussing their differences with the adult victim, the accused deliberately decided to resort to violence and armed himself with a very dangerous weapon to intentionally cause severe injuries. The strike to the face of the younger victim Ualesi would undoubtedly have been fatal if his father had not thrown his arm in the path of the strike.
9. Those who resort to unnecessary, severe violence when they are angry must expect correspondingly severe sentences, particularly when the lives of the victims are put at risk.
10. No amount or degree of reconciliation and restoration should take away the deterrence nature of the sentence to be imposed. It would be sending out the wrong message to the accused and other like-minded people. Those factors will be relevant when the personal circumstances relevant to mitigating the sentence are considered.
11. A custodial sentence must be imposed here. For each offence a starting point of 9 years is considered the appropriate one. For the punishment by the village council and the fine I deduct 3 years. For the remorse and previous good character I deduct 18 months. For each offence of attempted murder, the accused will serve 4 ½ years to be served concurrently. Any time spent in custody will be deducted.

JUSTICE VAAI