Police v Tautalaaso [2016] WSSC 96 (10 June 2016)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tautalaaso [2016] WSSC 96

Case name:	Police v Tautalaaso
Citation:	[2016] WSSC 96
Decision date:	10 June 2016
Parties:	POLICE (prosecution) and TIMU TAUTALAASO, male of Nofalii and Salelologa (defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	S2734/15, S2737/15
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE VAAI
On appeal from:
Order:	Sentenced to five years imprisonment less any time spent in custody.
Representation:	L Sio for prosecution
	R Papalii for defendant
Catchwords:	Attempted murder – shooting – family land dispute – aggravating features – imprisonment term
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

TIMU TAUTALAASO male of Nofoalii and Salelologa
Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for prosecution
R Papalii for defendant

Sentence: 10 June 2016

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused aged 49 of Nofoalii village, pleaded guilty to the crime of attempting to murder another male villager (victim) aged 45 on the evening of the 13^th August 2015 by shooting him with a 12 gauge shot gun. The victim was not injured, but his wife who was sitting close to him was the victim of the shooting. Both the accused and the victim are related, the use and occupancy of the family land has been the subject of disagreement which angered the accused resulting in the shooting.
2. Prior to the shooting, the accused was constructing a house on family lands which the victim and other members of the family objected to and a stop notice was obtained and given to the accused. On the evening of the 13^th August 2015 the accused and a friend consumed alcohol during the course of which the accused repeatedly uttered words to the effect that the victim should be shot. Later in the evening the accused obtained the shotgun and went looking for the victim.
3. The victim and his wife were sitting on the bed inside their open house watching television. All the lights were turned off. When the dogs barked uncontrollably, the victim stood by the side of the bed, turned on his torch and pointed it to where the dogs were barking. According to the undisputed summary of facts:
   • “9. As soon as the victim did this, the defendant pointed the gun towards the victim and fired the shot. The shot however missed the victim but the pellets of the bullet hit front of the victim’s body.
   • “10. The pellets of the bullet spread throughout the victim’s stomach, left leg and breasts but the majority of the pellets entered the victim’s left breast. As a result, the victim bled from pellets in her left breast.”
4. It was in fact the victim’s wife who was injured.
5. As the defendant left he fired another shot into the air. Victim’s wife was taken to hospital. She was hospitalised for 6 days.

The accused

6. With very limited education, the accused has been a planter virtually all his life since he left school at year 10. He has been married for 26 years and a father of five children ranging from 25 years to 13 years old.
7. Attached to the pre-sentence report are testimonials from his church and village leaders. He is well spoken of. His close relatives also hold him in high esteem – they claim the offending is totally out of character. He has faithfully served his family, village and church for a considerable number of years.
8. His family has rendered the traditional apology, they have also apologised to the injured wife while she was hospitalised. A hefty penalty has also been imposed by the village.

Aggravating Features

9. Perhaps the worst aggravating feature of the offending is that the accused deliberately got himself drunk to generate enough courage to carry out the planned shooting. Throughout the drinking session he repeatedly talked about shooting the victim.
10. Although the injuries suffered by the wife cannot be described as fatal, some of the pellets cannot be removed from her left breast and will continue to be a source of pain and discomfort and which, according to the victim’s impact report, will require the wife to continue to take medication to relieve the pain.
11. The use of the gun is a clear indication of intent by the accused to cause death.

Discussion

12. Although the victim was not injured by the shooting, the accused in his state of anger formed the intent to shoot, got himself drunk, obtained the gun, walked to the victim’s house and shot at the victim who was standing in his house close to his wife who was badly injured, though not fatal, by the pellets.
    
13. A non custodial sentence as submitted by counsel is out of question. Attempt to take one’s life by the use of a gun is a grave offence which must be met by a stern and severe sentence. Society’s denunciation of the accused’s offending must be conveyed to deter the accused and other similar minded persons. Although the victim’s wife had no part in the land dispute which led to the attempt by the accused to kill the victim, the wife, by carrying in her body the cartridge pellets from the shooting, will be a constant reminder of the attempt by the accused to kill her husband.
14. A ten year starting point is considered appropriate. Three years will be deducted for his guilty plea. For the traditional ifoga and apology to the wife, a further twelve months will be deducted, and for the hefty fine imposed by the village, a further twelve months will be made. He is sentenced to five years imprisonment less any time spent in custody.

JUSTICE VAAI