Police v Levi [2016] WSSC 118 (8 June 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Levi [2016] WSSC 118

Case name:	Police v Levi
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 118
Decision date:	08 June 2016
Parties:	POLICE and ADAM LEVI, male of Vaitoomuli Palauli and Falelauniu (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren
On appeal from:
Order:	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision for each offence, to be served concurrently. As a special condition of his sentence, he is to continue to undergo alcohol counselling and/ or anger management counselling as deemed appropriate by Probation and he is not to consume alcohol.
Representation:	F. Ioane for Prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Intentional damage – armed with a dangerous weapon (stone) – intoxicated – completed six week drug and alcohol programme – no apology – first offender – early guilty plea – accused an under aged drinker
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s.184(2)(a)
	Police Offences Ordinance 1961 s.25 Community Justice Act 20018 s.12 Liquor Act 2011 s 14
Cases cited:	Police v Lipa [2013] WSSC 63(29 July 2013
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

ADAM LEVI male of Vaitoomuli Palauli and Falelauniu
Accused

Counsel:
F. Ioane for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 8 June 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on two charges, one of intentional damage , contrary to s.184(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and one of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a stone pursuant to s.25 e Police Offences Ordinance 1961. The charge of being armedarmed carries a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment
2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charges on 18 April 2016.

The offending

3. According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 30 March 2016, the accused was drinking at the RSA club and was escorted out of the club by security guards. An argument ensued between the accused and the RSA security guards. He then walked to the back of the Development Bank Building and threw a stone at the glass window of the bank. This resulted in a crack in the window.
4. The value of the damaged property is SAT $7500.00.

Background of the accused

5. The accused is 20 years old, single and is a student at the National University of Samoa. He is a nursing student and is in year three of the programme. He is sponsored by the Ministry of Health in his studies.
6. He is the youngest of two children. His family relies on his father’s electronic skills, his mother’s job as a house girl and sister’s job as a cashier for CCK.
7. The accused had been drinking since 1 pm on the day of the offending. He told probation that he has no recollection of the offending as he was too drunk. He expressed remorse to probation.
8. The accused undertook 6 weeks of the programme Toe Afua se Taeao Fou with probation for alcohol counselling. He has a certificate of completion issued by the Alcohol and Drugs Court. His parents have written to the Court thanking the programme for the big change that they have observed in the accused. He does not touch alcohol anymore.
9. There is also a testimonial from Reverend Pesaleli (EFKS Nuu-Faleata) in which he says that the accused is a member of the church youth and choir groups. He says the accused is a reliable and honest young man. Reverend Pesaleli has offered to spiritually mentor the accused.
10. The accused has not apologised to the bank for the damage he caused.
11. The accused is a first offender.

The Victim

12. No Victim Impact Report was provided to the Court.
13. Prosecution does confirm that the value of the damaged window is SAT$7500.00 and the accused has not apologised.

The Aggravating Features of the Offending

14. It is aggravating that the actions of the accused were unprovoked and unwarranted. The bank has suffered significant financial loss for no reason at all.
15. The value of the damaged window is significant, being $7500.00.
16. The accused also used a weapon, namely a stone, which ended up causing financial loss to the bank.

Mitigating Factors

17. It is a personal mitigating factor that the accused attended the programme as ordered by the Court and completed that programme successfully. This shows his willingness to take responsibility for his own rehabilitation and reintegration.
18. I take into account the letter from his parents and his faifeau as favourable to him.
19. He is a student studying towards joining an honourable and valuable profession which is nursing. The fact that he is engaged in tertiary education is a mitigating factor.
20. The accused has also shown remorse to Probation.
21. The final mitigating factor is his early guilty pleas to the charges.

Discussion

22. Before I impose sentence it is important that the Court delivers a message about this type of offending. I have said this before but I reiterate it here. Too often in our society we see the ease with which people use stones as a way to frighten, harm, and even bring death to others, as well as damage property. This is such a case which has resulted in property damage. It is a cowardly act to use a stone in such a way. The Court will not stand by and allow this to continue. We must work towards changing mindsets about the harmfulness of using stones as weapons.
23. This same trepidation applies to the alcohol consumption in this case. The level of alcohol consumption is astonishing as the accused could not recall the offending. The accused is not even of legal age to be drinking alcohol. It is an offence to sell or supply liquor to a person under the age of 21 years under section 14 of the Liquor Act 2011. The RSA night club must abide by the law as this is not the first case of underage drinking which has come before the Court concerning the same night club. The Liquor Control Board should take note. Prosecution is to inform the Liquor Control Board of this case.
24. Having considered the aggravating factors relating to the offending and the mitigating factors personal to the accused as well as taking into account the sentencing objectives of retribution, deterrence, the need for protection of society, and rehabilitation, I have decided that it is appropriate to impose a non-custodial sentence in this case. I use Chief Justice Sapolu’s words in the case of Police v Lipa [2013] WSSC 63(29 July 2013;

“What remains in my opinion is balancing the public interest in the protection of society from the kind of actions committed by the accused and the public interest in the rehabilitation of the accused. In weighing these public interests, I have come to the view that in this case the public interest in the rehabilitation of the accused should take precedence”.

25. Similarly in this case, given the age of the accused, his future prospects in nursing if he completes his studies and his participation in Toe Afua se Taeao Fou programme, the sentence imposed today will continue the good work started in the programme and focus on his continued rehabilitation. Whilst the Court plays its part, I also ask Reverend Pesaleli to continue to provide spiritual mentoring for the accused, and his parents to provide this young man with guidance which he so clearly needs. Ensuring this young man does not reoffend and reaches his goals requires effort not only by the accused but also his parents and spiritual leader.

Sentence

26. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 12 months supervision pursuant to s.12 of the Community Justice Act 2008 for each offence, to be served concurrently. As a special condition of his sentence, he is to continue to undergo alcohol counselling and/ or anger management counselling as deemed appropriate by Probation and he is not to consume alcohol.
    

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN