Police v Vei [2016] WSSC 148 (17 August 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Vei [2016] WSSC 148

Case name:	Police v Vei
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 148
Decision date:	17 August 2016
Parties:	POLICE and LAFOGA PELEGATINO VEI male of Samalaeulu and Leififi
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for each offence to be served concurrently.
Representation:	L Sio for Prosecution Defendant in Person
Catchwords:	Sexual connection with a dependant – step-father/step-daughter – breach of trust – 11 year age gap – occurred multiple times – early guilty plea – first offender – seven year starting point – custodial sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

LAFOGA PELEGATINO VEI, male of Samalaeulu and Leififi
Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for Prosecution
Defendant in Person

Sentence: 17 August 2016

SENTENCING OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

1. The defendant is to be sentenced on 15 counts of having sex with a dependent member of his family between 01 October 2015 and 31 December 2015. The victim is the defendant’s step daughter.
2. The penalty under the law is maximum 14 years imprisonment.
3. From the summary of facts, the offending took place at home and at night when the victim’s mother or the defendant’s wife was asleep.
4. The defendant from the pre-sentence report is 26 years’ old. He told probation that he had apologised to his wife’s family, however, the wife is said to have denied any apology by the defendant.
5. Sexual offending between father’s (step or biological) against their daughters is becoming prevalent. For a country that is professed to be “founded on God,” its churches filled every Sunday and whose culture is all about family yet the core values of family is being destroyed by the very people who are supposed to protect and provide safety for their family.
6. The victim was 15 years’ old and was attending Year 11 at Leififi College. She was living with her mother and defendant at her mother’s family at Malifa.
7. The defendant in the pre-sentence report seemed to be saying that the sexual relationship with the victim was initiated by the victim and that she fully consented to it. I don’t for one second believe what he told probation.
8. The aggravating features of the offending are:
   • (i) Vulnerability of the victim. She was only 15 years’ old at the time.
   • (ii) Age disparity – There is an 11 year gap between the defendant and victim. The bigger the age gap, the more vulnerable the victim is.
   • (iii) Breach of trust – The victim was living with the defendant and she saw him as a father. The defendant himself said in the pre-sentence report that he treated the victim as his own daughter. He really made a mockery of that with what he did.
   • (iv) Multiple offending – This was not a one-off offending but multiple offending within the period of four months where the defendant had sex with the victim 15 times.
   • (v) Adverse impact on the victim – Any sexual offending will always have an adverse impact on the victims. The younger the victim is, the more adverse the impact would be.
9. The only mitigating factors in the defendant’s favor are being a first offender and his guilty pleas.
10. The prosecution in light of sentencing decisions by this Court of the same offending with similar circumstances seeks a starting point of five years.
11. The penalties under the law since 2013 are now harsher than it was before. The reason is no doubt to deter men from committing such sexual offending against women and girls. Despite the increase in penalties, sexual offending is on the rise and especially so within families. The Court would need to be harsher with its sentences to send out a clear and loud message that such behavior is not tolerated or acceptable. Women and girls need to feel safe at home and be free from such abhorrent behavior from men. In saying that, it will be a custodial sentence.
12. In the circumstances of this case a starting point of seven years is appropriate; less four months for being a first offender; less 25% for his early pleas. The end sentence is five years.
13. The defendant is convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for each offence to be served concurrently. The term to less any time in custody.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA