Police v Seumanutafa [2016] WSSC 121 (23 June 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Seumanutafa [2016] WSSC 121

Case name:	Police v Seumanutafa
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 121
Decision date:	23 June 2016
Parties:	POLICE and TAU SEUMANUTAFA, male of Vaimoso (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 ordered to come up for sentence in 12 months. He is not to reoffend or consume alcohol in 12 months commencing today. If he breaches these conditions he will be resentenced. The accused is to pay restitution of $300.00 to victim payable on 14 July 2016 by 4 pm, in default 2 months imprisonment.
Representation:	L. Sua-Mailo for Prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Intentional damage – intoxicated – completed six week Alcohol and Drug programme – previous conviction – no reconciliation
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s.184(2)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 1972 ss. 113; 113(2)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

TAU SEUMANUTAFA male of Vaimoso
Accused

Counsel:
L. Sua-Mailo for Prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 23 June 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

• The accused appears for sentence on one charge of intentional damage, contrary to s.184(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
• The accused pleaded guilty to the charge on 18 April 2016.

The offending

• According to the summary of facts admitted by the accused, on 20 March 2016 at around 4pm, the victim and his cousin were returning home from selling bananas at the market. On their way home, their car had a flat tyre at Vaimoso. The victim then locked his car and left it in front of Toi’s shop at Vaimoso while he went to Faleula. The accused broke the front left window of the car using his hand. When the victim returned to his car, he saw the accused and two other boys sitting inside his car. He chased them out.
• The value of the damage to the window of the car is SAT$600.00.

Background of the accused

• The accused is 23 years old, single and lives at Vaimoso. He is the youngest of five children. His mother has passed away and he lives with his father and looks after him. He works at his aunty’s sewing shop earning $100 per week.
• He enrolled in the University of the South Pacific in Agriculture but stopped due to financial constraints.
• The offending occurred when the accused was intoxicated after attending a cousin’s wedding.
• 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.
• The father of the accused told Probation that the accused is a trustworthy and helpful person in their family. He is also obedient and reliable.
• Reverend Tere has provided a reference for the accused saying he is a valued member of their church, participating in the choir and youth group.
• The accused has previous convictions in 2015 for burglary and theft.

The Victim

• No Victim Impact Report was provided to the Court.
• The Summary of Facts says that the victim is 42 years old of Faleula, married with one child.
• The Probation Report says that there has been no reconciliation of this matter.

The Aggravating Features of the Offending

• It is aggravating that the actions of the accused were unprovoked and unwarranted causing financial loss of $600.00 to the victim.

Aggravating features in respect of the offender

• It is an aggravating feature of the offender that he has previous convictions for burglary and theft in 2015.

Mitigating Factors

• 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.
• I take into account the testimonial from his faifeau.
• The final mitigating factor is his early guilty plea to the charge.

Discussion

• 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 note the previous offending by the accused was also due his alcohol consumption. I also note that that offending occurred last year. He was imprisoned for those offences. He has now reoffended. The Court has addressed the cause of his offending by sending him to a psycho-education Alcohol and Drugs programme. The Court has given him an opportunity to be rehabilitated, but if he chooses to reoffend again, a sentence of imprisonment will be a very real possibility.
• The victim in this case should not be forgotten. He has suffered financial loss due to the actions of the accused. Some restitution is required.

Sentence

• The accused is convicted and ordered to come up for sentence in 12 months pursuant to s 113 Criminal Procedure Act 1972. He is not to reoffend or consume alcohol in 12 months commencing today. If he breaches these conditions he will be resentenced. Court makes a further order pursuant to s113(2) Criminal Procedure Act 1972 that the accused pay restitution of $300.00 to victim payable on 14 July 2016 by 4 pm, in default 2 months imprisonment.

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN