Police v Vanilao [2016] WSSC 58 (24 March 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Vanilao [2016] WSSC 58

Case name:	Police v Vanilao
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 58
Decision date:	24 March 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) POE VANILAO, male of Lotofaga Aleipata. (Accused)
Hearing date(s):	22 March 2016
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	The accuseds challenge to admissibility fails. The cautioned statement is ruled admissible evidence in the coming trial of the accused on the charge of murder.
Representation:	P Chang for prosecution S Leung Wai for defendant
Catchwords:	-
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

POE VANILAO, male of Lotofaga Aleipata.
Accused

Counsel: P Chang for prosecution
S Leung Wai for defendant

Hearing: 22 March 2016

Judgment: 24 March 2016

RULING OF NELSON J
(Admissibility of Cautioned Statement)

1. At 12:50 pm on 25 June 2015, the day after the incident which resulted in the death of the accuseds brother, the accused made a cautioned statement to the police at the Apia Police Station. Therein he admits to deliberately setting fire to the faleo’o where his drunken brother was sleeping. The fire caused extensive burns to the brothers body causing his death about 12:00 noon on 25 June 2015. The accused has pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering his brother.
2. The accused has challenged the admissibility of his cautioned statement. He says he was mistreated by the police when arrested on 25 June 2015 at his home at Lotofaga. He was placed in handcuffs and was handcuffed to the bar of the police vehicle that transported him from Lotofaga to Apia, a journey which according to him took some 1½ hours. In actual fact, it would normally take only about an hour. He also alleges being handcuffed to a post at the Lalomanu Police Post where they stopped. Further he was handcuffed all the time he was at the Apia Police Station, including when he made his cautioned statement. Right up to the point where he was charged and placed in the holding cells. Cuffs were only removed when he signed his statement and in order to allow him to eat. Although not stated at the outset to be a ground for challenging the cautioned statement, it seems he is alleging police mistreatment led to his making a forced or involuntary confession.
3. He also says he was placed alone in a room for about 1½ hours upon arrival in Apia, and that he was cold and still handcuffed. He asked for water but received none. Although he admitted in evidence in chief to being given tea and bread pre his interview for the purposes of a cautioned statement, he subsequently changed this in cross examination to tea and bread post said interview.
4. His evidence was he told the police officers he did not want to make a statement but the officers typed one up anyway. A statement which he signed because they asked him to. He does not allege any threat or inducement was made or held out to him in order to obtain his signature.
5. He also denies the evidence of the interviewing investigating officer Corporal Paesi Laufili that after his statement was made and printed out, it was read to him. He seems to agree however he signed the statement without objection to any part thereof. In particular he says he told the Corporal he did not know anyone was in the faleo’o when he lit it up. Something he just decided to do because too many young tauleleas of the village used it for drinking. This despite his evidence he and the deceased and others were drinking their bottle of vodka in the same faleo’o earlier that evening.
6. I carefully observed the accused when he gave evidence. He was palpably nervous when the questions got difficult particularly in cross examination. He changed his evidence at least once and his denials were not credible. His explanation for signing an incriminating confession was totally unconvincing. Credibility wise generally he was a poor witness. Originally he rejected the whole of the statement. But when taken through its contents bit by bit, he admitted he had told the police much of the information therein contained. Such information as for example his personal details; his movements prior to the fatal incident; his desire to finish off cooking and go attend the bingo; his giving his brother $40.00 to buy a bottle of vodka; and many like matters could not have been known to the police. Only he could have disclosed those things. He then went on to admit he told them to the police but denied those parts of questions 14 and 16 which refer to his brother sleeping in the faleo’o. The rest of the statement he generally accepted as reflecting what he told the investigating officer during the interview.
7. I also note he signed the statement not once or twice but in eight different places. Although he says his reading skills are poor, his signature is strong and assured. I have seen the signatures of enough illiterate people to know the difference.
8. I do not believe you Poe when you deny knowing your brother was asleep in the faleo’o. I prefer the evidence of the Corporal and the Constable who recorded your interview. You were fully appraised of your legal rights to silence and to counsel and you chose voluntarily to make a statement. I am satisfied that statement was then read to you and with full understanding you signed it eight times.
9. That it does not record the fact that it was read to you does not affect its voluntary character or validity. There is no legal or practice requirement that after a statement is read to an accused that this be recorded therein. A failure to do this does not render a statement obtained involuntary or unfair. Although I accept some police statements do acknowledge the fact that an accused person has read the statement and “it is correct.” In this regard I accept the sworn evidence of the two police officers in preference over the accused.
10. I also do not believe your evidence as to the nature of the handcuffing and your being handcuffed to the bar of the vehicle or to a post at Lalomanu; or to being so restrained when you made your cautioned statement. Handcuffing of suspects and arrested persons is neither a novel or new practice. Especially where there is friction between the suspect and bystanders, eyewitnesses or family members. Here one of your sisters was very upset by what you did and according to the police evidence visibly interfered in the carrying out of their duties. It was possibly in your best interests to be removed from the area post incident given what had occurred.
11. Much of your evidence on the handcuffing made no sense. For example why you would need to be handcuffed when locked away alone in a room awaiting your interview or why would your handcuffs would be removed for signing and then immediately reattached by the police to be then removed again when you were taken away to the holding cells. As you said there was no evidence you were trying to escape.
12. Again I prefer the police evidence on the matter and I find nothing unduly harsh or unconscionable in their handcuffing you in the normal fashion for the purposes of transporting you from Lotofaga to Apia. Where your cuffs were removed once you were inside the precincts of the police station.
13. The accuseds challenge to admissibility fails. The cautioned statement is ruled admissible evidence in the coming trial of the accused on the charge of murder.

JUSTICE NELSON