Police v Valoaga [2016] WSSC 9 (2 March 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Valoaga [2016] WSSC 9

Case name:	Police v Valoaga
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 9
Decision date:	2 March 2016
Parties:	POLICE v RONNIE VALOAGA and GERARD VALOAGA both of Tuanai.
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S2538-2540/15
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Chief Justice Sapolu
On appeal from:
Order:	- Both accused are convicted and sentenced to 7 months community supervision. Each of them is also to perform 25 hours of community service.
Representation:	L Tavita for prosecution
	Accused in person
Catchwords:	Grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon – maximum penalty – sentence – good character testimonials -
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.118 (1)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S2538-2540/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

RONNIE VALOAGA and GERARD VALOAGA both of Tuanai.
Accused

Counsel: L Tavita for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 2 March 2016

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused Ronnie Valoaga (Ronnie) and Gerard Valoaga (Gerard) are brothers. Ronnie is 29 years old and Gerard is 17 years old. They are appearing for sentence on one joint charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.118 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Ronnie also appears for sentence on an individual charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, stones without a lawful purpose, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1960, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment.
2. When this matter was called for mention, Ronnie pleaded guilty to the joint charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and not guilty to the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon without a lawful purpose. Gerard pleaded not guilty to the joint charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. On the morning of the trial, both accused vacated their not guilty pleas and substituted them with guilty pleas. When asked why they had pleaded not guilty, they said they were unsure and afraid as this is their first time in Court.

The offending

3. On 28 July 2015, the victim who is a 23 year old male of Afega and the accused were at a game of volleyball at the accused’s village of Tuanai. This was between 5:00 pm and 6:00pm. The victim was the umpire while the accused were playing together in one of the teams. Ronnie then argued with the victim about how the victim was umpiring the game between the team of the accused and another team. At the end of the game, Ronnie and the victim exchanged insulting words at each other. The victim then picked up a rock and threw it at Ronnie. Both accused then picked up rocks and pursued the victim and beat him up until other members of the village intervened and stopped them. As a result of the assault by the accused, the victim sustained injuries to his nose, the back of his head, and his elbow. In a case like this, it is important to explain the nature of the injuries so that the Court can be confident that it is ‘grievous bodily harm’ and not ‘actual bodily harm’ because the two offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and causing actual bodily harm with intent carry different maximum penalties.

The accused

4. The accused Ronnie, as shown from his pre-sentence report, finished school after Year 12. He then helped out his family with their plantation. When his father passed away in 2009, he took up employment as a taxi driver. He became a bus driver in 2012 and has been a bus driver up to now. He has been looking after his mother and is the main source of income for his family.
5. The testimonial given by Ronnie’s mother to the probation service shows that he has been a reliable, hardworking, and devoted member of his family. He is also described by his mother as a kind person. The testimonial from the bishop of Ronnie’s church shows him as an active member of his church for many years and an honest and trustworthy person. The testimonial from the matai of Ronnie’s family shows that Ronnie is the only member of his family with a paid job and his mother and siblings depend on him. Ronnie is also described as a good person and a regular churchgoer. He also provides for the school fees of his younger siblings from his wages. It therefore appears that Ronnie has been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offending.
6. The accused Gerard, as shown from his pre-sentence report, also attended school up to Year 12. After leaving school he stayed home and helped out his family with domestic chores. He told the probation service that he has been called to serve as a missionary for his church and is awaiting further instructions from his church.
7. The testimonial given by Gerard’s mother to the probation service shows that he is hardworking, reliable, and a person of good character. The testimonial from the bishop of Gerard’s church shows that he is honest, hardworking, and a committed member of his church. So Gerard has been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offending.
8. It also appears from the pre-sentence reports of both accused that Ronnie and his mother have gone to the victim and apologised to the victim and gave the victim $100. The apology was accepted and this matter has been reconciled and settled. The victim confirmed the reconciliation to the probation service and requested for this matter to be withdrawn.

Discussion

9. This offending arose from a game of volleyball because the accused Ronnie was unhappy with the way the victim was umpiring the game between the team of the accused and another team. It led to an exchange of insulting words between Ronnie and the victim and the victim throwing a stone at Ronnie. The two accused then picked up rocks and pursued the victim. When they caught with the victim they assaulted him resulting in injuries to the victim’s nose, head, and elbow. This matter was subsequently reconciled and settled when Ronnie and his mother went and apologised to the victim.
10. The accused are first offenders. Good character testimonials have been presented on their behalf. They have also pleaded guilty to the charges against them. The accused Ronnie is also the only source of income for his family. The accused Gerard is 17 years of age.
11. In all the circumstances, including the nature of the offending, custodial sentences will not be appropriate in this case. I will give the accused the opportunity to redeem themselves and not to reoffend.

Result

12. Both accused are convicted and sentenced to 7 months community supervision. Each of them is also to perform 25 hours of community service.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE