Police v Sefo [2016] WSSC 49 (31 March 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sefo [2016] WSSC 49

Case name:	Police v Sefo
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 49
Decision date:	31 March 2016
Parties:	POLICE v VESI SEFO male of Lufilufi and Fusi, Safata.
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	CHIEF JUSTICE SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:	- Convicted and sentenced to 13 months imprisonment.
Representation:	M P Chang for prosecution Accused in person
Catchwords:	Arson – maximum penalty – sentence – aggravating and mitigating features –
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013s.182 (3)
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

VESI SEFO male of Lufilufi and Fusi, Safata.
Accused

Counsel:
M P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 31 March 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused Vesi Sefo is a 45 year old male of Lufilufi and Fusi, Safata. He appears for sentence on one charge of arson, contrary to s.182 (3) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. To the charge, he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. On 7 January 2016 in the afternoon, the accused was drinking a large bottle of vodka with some fishermen of his village of Fusi, Safata. When he left to go home, he was heavily intoxicated. When he arrived home, his wife scolded him for being drunk. An argument ensued between the accused and his wife. As a result, the accused’s wife left their house which is a Samoan hut and went to a relative’s house nearby. The accused then got dried coconut palm leaves (aulama), lighted them, and set fire to his family’s Samoan hut. The whole hut was burnt down. His family’s cooking pots, plates, tea cups, kitchen utensils and children’s clothes were all burnt and destroyed. The estimated value of the damage is $1,333.00. His wife and children have now lost their house.

The accused

3. The accused is married with seven children. The accused’s real village is Lufilufi but at the time of the offending was living with his wife and children at his wife’s family in Fusi, Safata. He cultivated his own plantation to support his family.
4. The accused is also a first offender. The pre-sentence report shows that his only problem is alcohol and always gets into trouble when he is under the influence of alcohol. His wife still supports him and has told the probation service that her husband is a good person except for his alcohol problem. The testimonial from the Methodist pastor of Fusi, Safata, shows the accused as a good person who is supportive of his church activities. The testimonial from the pulenuu of Fusi, Safata, shows the accused as an honest and hardworking person who is always supportive of village activities. He was also a member of the village committee that enforces the village curfews. The testimonial from the father of the accused’s family and other matais of his family shows that the accused and his family have already performed a ifoga to the wife’s family and it was accepted and the wife’s family have forgiven the accused and requested to withdraw the charge against the accused.
5. Following the offending, the accused was banished from his wife’s family and from the village of Fusi, Safata. He is now living in his real village of Lufilufi.

Aggravating and mitigating features

6. The aggravating features relating to this offending are the total value of the properties that were destroyed by the fire, the fact that it was the accused’s family home that was set on fire and was completely destroyed, and the impact of the offending on the accused’s wife and children.
7. The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender is his previous good character, the ifoga by the accused and his family to his wife’s family which was accepted so that this matter has now been reconciled, the fact that the accused has been banished from his wife’s family and the village of Fusi, Safata, and his early guilty plea to the charge.

Discussion

8. This is another alcohol offending. Far too high a proportion of criminal offending, including the offence of arson, is alcohol related. An Alcohol and Drugs Court has been established to try and combat this problem. This case is not included within the region to which the jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Drugs Court presently applies. So the accused has not been referred to the Alcohol and Drugs Court for an assessment by the Court’s clinician.
9. The seriousness of this offending really lies in the fact that it was the family home that was destroyed and its effect on the accused’s wife and seven children whose clothes were also destroyed in the fire. The accused’s wife and children must now be living with relatives. In these circumstances, I will take a starting point for sentence of 3 years. For previous good character, I will deduct 3 months. That leaves 2 years and 9 months. For the ifoga and subsequent reconciliation, I will deduct 6 months. That leaves 2 years and 3 months. For the punishment already imposed on the accused by being banished from his wife’s family and the village of Fusi, Safata, I will deduct another 9 months. That leaves 18 months. I will then deduct ¼ or 25% for the early guilty plea and that leaves 13½ months. I will round this off to 13 months in favour of the accused.

Result

10. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 13 months imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE