Police v Elisala [2017] WSSC 132 (6 October 2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Elisala [2017] WSSC 132

Case name:	Police v Elisala
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 132
Decision date:	06 October 2017
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) and ELISALA UTAILESOLO ELISALA, male of Lalomanu Aleipata (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	Convicted and sentenced to six months supervision.
Representation:	A Matalasi for Prosecution Defendant in Person
Catchwords:	Causing bodily injury – first offender – defendant and victim related – provocation – supervision term
Words and phrases:	Under the influence (alcohol) at time of offending – completed eight week Alcohol/Drug Program – matter been settled within family
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s.118(1)
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Prosecution

AND:

ELISALA UTAILESOLO ELISALA, male of Lalomanu Aleipata.
Defendant

Counsel:
A Matalasi for Prosecution
Defendant in Person

Sentence: 06 October 2017

SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA J

1. The accused is charged with one count of causing bodily injury to Kilisi Uili of Lalomanu, Aleipata pursuant to s.118(1) of Crimes Act 2013 which penalty is maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.
2. The accused pleaded guilty to the offence and admitted to committing the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol and was referred to the ADC for determination.
3. At determination the ADC Clinician and Case Manager recommended that the eight week psycho-educational program on Alcohol/Drug use and the Anger Management program will be more appropriate for the accused rather than undergoing the full ADC programs. The recommendation was based on the following circumstances:
   • (i) The accused is 37 years old and has never offended.
   • (ii) The accused is a responsible, mature person who looks after his elderly parents;
   • (iii) The victim is a nephew of the accused.
   • (iv) The accused assaulted his nephew because he was making too much noise (usūsū) using offensive language in front of the house while the elderly parents of the accused were already asleep. This is considered to be very rude, disrespectful and an affront to the family.
   • (v) The accused tried to calm and quiet the nephew but he was too drunk and did not listen. This angered the accused and resulted in him kicking the nephew in the mouth once to quieten him.
   • (vi) The matter has already been settled within the family. The nephew suffered a fractured jaw which injury is quite serious as the nephew could not eat solids for a couple of weeks.
4. The report from the ADC Case Manager, Mr Petelo, on the eight week Alcohol/Drug Program that the accused underwent has Mr Petelo confirming that the accused has completed the eight weeks and that the accused, “Has demonstrated insight into his own substance use, his anger and the significant effects that it has had not only on himself but also his family and his relationship with others.” The accused reported to Mr Petelo that he has not touched alcohol or any substance since the day he offended. The accused father in the pre-sentence report also confirms this.
5. The Prosecution recommends a starting point of two years’ imprisonment. The sentencing indication given to the accused when he pleaded guilty when referred to the ADC was six months’ imprisonment.
6. In my view and upon the grounds that were considered by the ADC Clinician and Case Manager for referral of the accused to the eight week program, that the offence was provoked by the victim but most importantly the matter has been settled within the family; the accused is convicted and sentenced to six months’ supervision.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA