Police v Keji Li [2017] WSSC 169 (16 November 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Keji Li [2017] WSSC 169

Case name:	Police v Li
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 169
Ruling date:	16 November 2017
Parties:	POLICE v KEJI LI male of China.
Ruling date(s):	16 November 2017
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	JUSTICE LEIATAUALESA DARYL MICHAEL CLARKE
On appeal from:
Order:	- Accordingly, pursuant to section 33(A)(3)(C) of the Community Justice Act 2008, the community work sentence of 200 hours is cancelled. I substitute in place of that sentence 90 hours of community work and a fine of $650.00 to be paid within 7 days, in default 4 weeks imprisonment. The monetary fine takes into account the maximum fine payable of $2,000.00 and the community work component of the balance that is now reduced. - This sentence is one that could be imposed initially. These are my reasons in brief. Full and detail reasons can be provided if requested by counsel in due course.
Representation:	L A Matalasi for Prosecution L R Schuster for the Accused
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:	application to vary the community work order; carrying out of the community work components of the sentence; circumstances of the accused has changed; community work sentence of 200 hours is cancelled.
Legislation cited:	Community Justice Act 2008
Cases cited:	New Zealand Court of Appeal stated in R v Morgan 2008 NZCA232;
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

KEJI LI male of China.
Accused

Counsel:
L A Matalasi for Prosecution
L R Schuster for the Accused

Decision: 16 November 2017

ORAL RULING

[1] Having heard from counsels for the accused and prosecution and also from the Probation Service as to the carrying out of the community work components of the sentence, I am satisfied as is the prosecution that the circumstances of the accused has changed such that his continued extended stay in Samoa to complete the community work component of the sentence places his employment at risk as now set out by his employer in his most recent correspondence attached to the accused affidavit.

[2] In accepting that circumstances have changed, I also bear in mind what the probation services said that the accused has not commenced his community work sentence due to difficulties in placing the accused on a community work program suitable to his skills and such that it will enable the accused to complete his community work without unnecessary delay.

[3] I bear in mind section 30 of the Community Justice Act 2008 and the appropriate placement of the accused as set out by the statute. The Probation Service has indicated the ability for the accused to carry out between 20 hours per week up to 40 hours per week in community work which may not necessarily be relevant to his particular skill set.

[4] As the New Zealand Court of Appeal stated in R v Morgan 2008 NZCA232 “while there has to be proportionality between the sentences, the Court considered that there could not be any strict correlation between them, the essential point is that the sentence must be one that could properly be imposed initially.”

[5] The application to vary the community work order is established such as to justify variation to the community work order made. Accordingly, pursuant to section 33(A)(3)(C) of the Community Justice Act 2008, the community work sentence of 200 hours is cancelled. I substitute in place of that sentence 90 hours of community work and a fine of $650.00 to be paid within 7 days, in default 4 weeks imprisonment. The monetary fine takes into account the maximum fine payable of $2,000.00 and the community work component of the balance that is now reduced.

[6] This sentence is one that could be imposed initially. These are my reasons in brief. Full and detail reasons can be provided if requested by counsel in due course.

Addendum: This sentencing matter was dealt with by me orally on 16 November 2017. I had indicated on the 16 November 2017 that my full detailed reasons can be provided on request by counsels. My reasons for the ruling are as delivered, with the addition of the words “Community Justice Act 2008” to paragraph 5 line 2 above.

JUSTICE CLARKE