Police v Leaumoana [2016] WSSC 157 (11 April 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Leaumoana [2016] WSSC 157

Case name:	Police v Leaumoana
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 157
Decision date:	11 April 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) ARASI LEAUMOANA also known as ALASI LEAUMOANA female of Vaitoloa and Manono. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S3841/15, S3863/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	In respect of the main charge of causing injury convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison. Any time spent in custody to be deducted. On the secondary charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely a cutter convicted and sentenced to 9 months, concurrent term. Total term then is 2 years in prison, less any time in custody you have spent awaiting these proceedings.
Representation:	O Tagaloa for prosecution T Leavai for defendant
Catchwords:	armed with a dangerous weapon – grievous bodily harm
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

ARASI LEAUMOANA also known as ALASI LEAUMOANA female of Vaitoloa and Manono.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
T Leavai for defendant
Sentence: 11 April 2016

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has entered a guilty plea to two charges. Firstly that at Savalalo on the 23 November 2015 she did with intent commit grievous bodily harm on Faith Ekeroma a female of Magiagi. The second is that on the same day same place, she was armed with a dangerous weapon namely a green garment cutter not being so armed for a sufficient or lawful purpose. The prosecution amended summary of facts dated 17 March 2016 which has been accepted by the defendant through her counsel says the defendant is a 23 year old female of Vaitoloa, single and employed at the time of this matter as a sales person at GSI Store. The complainant is also 23 years of age from Magiagi married with two children.
2. On Monday, 23 November 2015 at about 4:00 pm the defendant was at her place of work at the GSI Store when the complainant visited her. The summary of facts says that the weekend before this Monday there had been some texting involving the complainants younger sister and the defendant. The reason why the complainant went to see the defendant was about these texts. She was apparently angry at the text exchanges that occurred between the defendant and her younger sister. There is also some further history between the parties referred to in the pre-sentence report but I do not propose to go into that background as it is only marginally relevant to what happened.
3. When the complainant confronted the victim a discussion occurred. At the time the defendant was holding the cutter used in this assault. The cutter in question is a very small sharp instrument used to cut cloth and other materials. The summary says that the complainant confronted the defendant and threw the first punch. That started this whole incident.
4. The court has been given CCTV footage from GSI Store of the incident. This shows that when the complainant confronted the defendant a co-worker of the defendant intervened to break up the confrontation. And that it was not the complainant punching the defendant that started this but the complainant punching the co-worker. The complainant and co-worker then began fighting and the defendant joined in. Many other people in addition to the defendant the co-worker and the complainant also became involved in what can only be described as a melee. In the course of this commotion the defendant used the cutter she had been holding to injure the complainants face and stomach.
5. In fact that is not what the CCTV footage shows. That seems to indicate the defendant was not holding anything when confronted by the complainant. It shows the defendant grabbed the cutter off a nearby shelf and then used that to assault the complaint. The footage is a little blurry but the defendant herself knows what she did. I can tell the defendant that it matters not whether she was holding the cutter before using it or she grabbed it off a shelf and then used it in the assault. If anything the fact that she grabbed it and then used it shows it was a spur of the moment instantaneous action on her part and not a premeditated assault.
6. The main consideration is that she used an extremely sharp and lethal weapon to inflict serious injuries. As indicated to her counsel the footage shows the defendant delivered not one strike but a number of blows as part of a frenzied assault on the unarmed complainant. The complainant probably did not realise the defendant was armed. The CCTV footage also shows that this assault was only stopped when bystanders intervened. Further that the defendants blows with weapon in hand were aimed at the head and upper body of the complainant. Resulting in a 10 cm long laceration to the complainants right cheek and even longer cuts to the left lower abdomen of the complainants body. All of which required a substantial number of stitches and hospital care.
7. The victim impact report says the complainant was hospitalised 3 days before she was discharged. It also says these injuries have caused permanent scarring. And it is clear that unless the complainant undergoes extensive and undoubtedly expensive plastic surgery she will be left with these reminders. Having viewed the footage I am surprised that not more injuries were sustained by the defendants assault.
8. As indicated to Arasi at the last calling of this matter once a lethal and life threatening weapon is used especially on an unarmed person and it causes injury then invariably imprisonment penalties are imposed by the court. Had she just used her fists perhaps a different outcome may have resulted. Once a person uses a weapon, especially a weapon like this cutter, they cross the line and put themselves into jail. The deterrent message from the court to the defendant and to the general public is that if you resort to weapons in this kind of pattern and cause life threatening injuries be prepared for a stern punishment.
9. The maximum penalty for the primary offence you have pleaded guilty to of causing injury is 7 years in prison. But considering the circumstances of your case particularly the nature of the weapon used and the nature of the assault sentence in my view should start at 5 years in prison. But there are deductions that you are eligible for and your lawyer has reminded the court about that needs to be made from your start point. Firstly your guilty plea which has saved the time of the court and resources of the State and which also indicates that you are remorseful, I deduct one-quarter of the term namely a period of 15 months, leaves a balance of 45 months.
10. You are a first offender Arasi, you have a good pre-sentence report it speaks of your background of service to your family. That report is supported by references from your faifeau as well as the pulenuu of your afioaga. To recognize those I deduct 6 months which is a normal deduction, leaves a balance of 39 months.
11. I accept the victim or the complainant started this by coming to your workplace and picking a fight with you and your co-worker. But your retaliation was out of all proportion to the provocation I therefore will only deduct 3 months from the balance of sentence for that factor, leaves 36 months in prison.
12. The pre-sentence report confirms the settlement and reconciliation for this matter, you have together with your family apologised and that has been accepted by the complainant. The pre-sentence report from the probation office contains a petition from the complainant for leniency for you. Those are important matters in the courts assessment I deduct a further 6 months, leaves 30 months.
13. The pre-sentence report also refers to a penalty imposed by the village council of your afioaga Manono-uta. And records that this has been attended to by your family for you. The penalty seems light but by law it is required to be taken into account and is an important part of our tu and aganuu. I deduct 6 months for that, leaves 24 months in prison. No other deductions are available to you for this matter Arasi. In respect of the main charge of causing injury convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison. Any time spent in custody to be deducted.
14. On the secondary charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely a cutter convicted and sentenced to 9 months, concurrent term. Total term then is 2 years in prison, less any time in custody you have spent awaiting these proceedings.
    

JUSTICE NELSON