Police v Paulo [2016] WSSC 160 (2 May 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Paulo [2016] WSSC 160

Case name:	Police v Paulo
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 160
Decision date:	02 May 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) NIKO TUPA’I PAULO male of Lepā. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S890/16, S894/16
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation:	I Atoa for prosecution Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

NIKO TUPA’I PAULO male of Lepā.
Defendant

Counsel: I Atoa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 02 May 2016

SENTENCE

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges. The first is that at Lepā on 16 March 2016, he tried to murder his brother Nayvo Tupa’i Paulo. The second is that, same place same date, he was armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a bush knife.
2. The police summary of facts which the defendant admitted this morning says he is a 22 year old male of Lepā, works on the family plantation. The victim is his 35 year old brother.
3. On the day in question the defendant returned home to Lepā from selling crops in Apia at the market. He bought six large Taula beer bottles to drink. The defendant told the Probation office he drank four bottles by the time he got to his home village. Taula being a very strong beer, he was obviously intoxicated by the time he got home. He was making a lot of noise and this made his father angry. His father hit him with a stick and told him to be quiet. This made the defendant very angry and he went to the back of the house and armed himself with a machete and went towards his father with the machete.
4. He was intercepted by the victim who tried to disarm him. This caused the defendant to become angry at the victim and he punched him in the face. The victim retaliated by punching back. The summary of facts says this made the defendant more angry and he struck the victim on the right shoulder with the machete. The summary also says the defendant then delivered a second strike cutting the victims right hand palm. The summary goes on to say the victim tried to leave to avoid any more trouble. And while the victim had his back to the defendant, the defendant struck him again cutting off his left wrist. The victim then ran off to the main road seeking help and came across one of the villagers who took him to hospital.
5. The victim appeared before the court this morning. His injuries were obvious and they appear also permanent. And he said that while he has forgiven his brother it is appropriate that he serve a punishment. The defendants mother also appeared and said the defendant only did this because he was drunk. She petitioned the court for a chance for her son. That is understandable because she is the mother.
6. But there is no question the seriousness of the offending requires an imprisonment penalty. The defendant used a sapelu to strike his brother three times; one blow was strong enough to cut through muscle and bone and cut off the victims left wrist. The right palm wound from its positioning is probably a defensive wound. The laceration to the shoulder was deep and according to the victim required eleven (11) stitches. These are all life threatening injuries and the defendant has pleaded guilty to attempting to kill his brother in a drunken rage.
7. The defendant too referred to his intoxicated state, he seemed to be trying to blame his actions on alcohol. The court does not accept that, alcohol is no justification for this kind of behaviour. It is clear from the pre-sentence report Niko is an experienced drinker and if he knew he could not handle alcohol he should have left palagi alcohol alone. Nikos drunkenness does not mitigate his conduct or save him from jail.
8. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is life imprisonment. In this case the defendant was originally angry at his father then he went to the back of the house and fetched the machete. He went towards his father with the machete and the victim intervened and so the defendant turned on the victim. The victim was unarmed and the defendants machete is probably for plantation work which means it is kept in a sharp condition. This was the weapon the defendant used to deliver more than one blow to his unarmed brother. The summary of facts says the wrist blow was delivered when the victims back was turned to the defendant.
9. It is too often the case that our people resort to knives or such weapons when angry or intoxicated. The courts message to Niko and to others is that if you do this, you can expect a severe penalty.
10. Firstly the attempted murder charge, I adopt a start point of 10 years in prison, upgraded to 11½ years to reflect the severity of the injuries and the fact that you attacked an unarmed man. I will deduct 2½ years for your guilty plea because your guilty plea has saved the courts limited time and resources, leaves 9 years. I note you and your family have been banished by the sa’o of your aiga and also the village of Lepā for this matter. The law requires that to be taken into account. I will deduct 12 months for that, leaves 8 years balance.
11. I note there has been a reconciliation with your brother and your family as confirmed by your brother and your mother this morning. I will deduct 6 months in recognition of that, leaves a balance of 7½ years. You are a first offender; you have a good background as per the pre-sentence report. I will deduct 6 months for that Niko, leaves 7 years.
12. E leai seisi faamāmā avega e mafai ona tu’u atu e le Fa’amasinoga mo le mataupu lenei Niko. O le fa’asalaga i le moliaga lea o le taumafai e fasioti lou uso, fa’amaonia lou solitulafono, 7 tausaga e te nofo ai i le toese.
13. Mo leisi moliaga o le umia o se aupega, o le sapelu lea, fa’amaonia fo'i lou solitulafono, 9 masina i le toese, ae tuli fa’atasi fa’asalaga nei e lua. O lona uiga, 7 tausaga lou fa’asalaga mo le mataupu lenei. Ae a fa’apea sa e nofo taofia e fa’atalitali ai le fa’aiuga, e tatau fo'i ona toese mai i le 7 tausaga na le taimi lea sa e nofo taofia ai e fa’atalitali le fa’aiuga o le mataupu lenei. Ua e malamalama i le fa’asalaga? (Defendant said yes).
    

JUSTICE NELSON