Police v Luamanuvae [2017] WSSC 82 (21 April 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Luamanuvae [2017] WSSC 82

Case name:	Police v Luamanuvae
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 82
Decision date:	21 April 2017
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) and SAMAOSO LUAMANUVAE male of Fagaee, Salelologa and Tafaigata Prison. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	15 March 2017
File number(s):	S1227/16, S1066/16, S1067/16, S1065/16, S1229/16, S1068/16, S1063/16
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	There are seven charges against Samaoso. First one is S1227/16 of causing actual bodily harm to Paika Paika, he has pleaded guilty to that. The next is S1066/16 that he was armed with a dangerous weapon namely an empty Vailima bottle. The evidence on this issue is not clear. Neither of the two eye witnesses saw you with a beer bottle in your possession pre-incident. I am not satisfied to the required standard that you were therefore armed without a lawful purpose, that information against you is dismissed But both witnesses were very clear and agree you were throwing empty bottles at the vehicle and the occupant at some stage. Accordingly I found you guilty on S1067/16 a charge of throwing an object namely a Vailima bottle to the danger of a vehicle. S1065/16 is a charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely a stone. There is a difference in the evidence of the two witnesses. One said only Pauli had the rocks the other said you both had rocks. I will give you the benefit of a reasonable doubt in respect of that evidence, not guilty on that charge, it is dismissed. Information S1229/16 of willful trespass onto the wharf compound owned by the Samoa Shipping Corporation. Plenty of evidence to support that charge, guilty. S1068/16 using threatening words against the two men, again the evidence of both witnesses is consistent. They were threatened by you and Pauli On that charge I find you guilty. On the final charge S1063/16 of intentionally damaging by fire the Toyota pickup vehicle. Again the two witnesses are in agreement that you played a part in burning of this vehicle. On that charge there is enough evidence to convict you and I find you guilty on that charge.
Representation:	L Sio for prosecution Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords:	Throwing a bottle – being armed with a bottle – intentional damage – burning and intentional damage by fire – causing actual bodily harm - minor inconsistencies – found guilty – enough evidence to convict.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SAMAOSO LUAMANUVAE male of Fagaee, Salelologa and Tafaigata Prison.

Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Hearing: 15 March 2017

Decision: 21 April 2017

DECISION OF NELSON J

1. A total of eleven (11) charges face the defendant. Of the eleven (11) four (4) are duplicate charges so I am dismissing those four and these are the following informations: S1060/16 of throwing a bottle; S1061/16 of being armed with a bottle; S1228/16 of intentionally damaging the pickup involved in this matter; and S1064/16 of intentionally damaging the front windshield of that pickup. Dismissed because there is already a charge of being armed with a beer bottle, throwing a beer bottle, burning and intentionally damaging by fire the vehicle in question. That leaves seven (7) charges.
2. The police evidence consists mainly of two witnesses: the engineer on duty on the M V Lady Samoa anchored at Salelologa Wharf on the night in question Damien Tovia, and Tanielu Time the security guard on duty at the Wharf. The son of the owner of the vehicle involved in this matter also testified but his evidence is of little use other than to confirm the value of the vehicle was less than $5,000, its purchase price in 2009. The other witness was Paika Paika who was assaulted by the defendant. He confirmed it was the defendant who punched him causing him to lose consciousness. He was drinking with Reupena the driver of the vehicle at the Evaeva Bar by the Salelologa Wharf earlier that evening.
3. The evidence of the security guard was that about 11:00 pm on Easter Thursday, 24 March 2016 he was on duty at the Salelologa Wharf compound. When a man came running to him crying for help. His evidence was as follows:

“Tali na ou faalogoina se pa’o leotele mai luma atu o le uafu, na ou savali atu oute fiailoa aua o a’u o le sikulati o le uafu, ae faafuasei ona ma fetaui ma se tasi o tama o momoe mai, na ou taofia ona o a’u e iai le faatagana e sau ai le tagata i totonu o le uafu, e faasa ona sau seisi I le uafu, ae aioi mai si tama e fia maua se fesoasoani ona o le faalavelave lea ua tupu. O le taimi lea na momoe mai ai na ou faalogoina le tauai o fagupia. Pei e foliga ua tauai e nisi le tama lea i fagupia.

Fesili na e iloaina poo ai na tauaia?

Tali oute le iloaina, ou te lei oo foi i le mea lea tupu mai ai le faalavelave, ona ou faasinoina lea o si tama e momoe i le vaa e sue sona lafitaga i le vaa e malu ai. Ona ou toe mulimuli mai lea i le tama lea. Ou sau ma fetaui ma se tasi o seila lea e uati i le po lea.

Fesili o ai le suafa o le –

Tali o Damien

Fesili ia

Tali ia na ma tilotilo atu lea i o, e iai le taimi na ou agai ai luga o le vaa, ou toe sau loa lea i lalo. Ae ou tilotilo atu ua fasi mai loa leisi alii lea na toalua ma le tama lea na avea le taavale lea ua i totonu o le vaa. Na maea ona fasi ona agai mai loa lea o le aualii lea i totonu o le uafu.”

4. He said the defendants entered the wharf area, the defendant Samaoso climbed over the gate while his co-defendant Pauli crawled underneath it. Pauli was in possession of rocks and the two men questioned him and Damien the about the whereabouts of the driver of the vehicle. They denied any knowledge and the two men threatened them, left the wharf area went and burnt the car. When questioned about the burning of the car the witnesses evidence was:

“Ou te tilotilo atu o Samaoso le tagata na ou iloa atu o saesaea pepa ma tauai i totonu o le taavale, faamumu le afi ma kuku ai loa le taavale, o le mafuaaga lea o le mu o le taavale lea.

Fesili na e iloa atu le ituaiga pepa lea sa faaaoga?

Tali e foliga o se pepa atigipusa”

Later on at page 14 of the transcript:

“Fesili faafefea na e iloa atu Samaoso ile taimi lea na faatino ai le tulaga lea?

Tali o ia lea na ou tilotilo atu la e tu i tafatafa o le taavale, saei atigipusa sa tauai i totonu

Fesili o lea na e taua e te iloaina Samaoso?

Tali ia e sa’o”

5. Further on at page 15 of the witnesses evidence when he was asked about the lighting in the area:

“Fesili e malamalama lau vaai?

Tali e malamalama lelei ona sa ola moli o le auala tele, le moli lea e tu tonu i lalo o le mea lea e tupu ai le faalavelave.

Fesili ina ua uma ua sasao le afi, sa iai seisi mea sa e vaaia?

Tali e leai seisi mea pau le mea o le omai o leoleo ma fuimu ma tape le afi ma faatino suesuega a le alii leoleo.”

6. He also confirmed in examination in chief and cross examination that the defendants threw bottles at the vehicle. He says this at page 16 of his evidence:

“Fesili e fia ni fagupia na e faalogo o tauai mai ai e le tagata le tama lea ua e aveina i luga o le vaa?

Tali e le mafai ona ou iloa le aofai o fagupia ile taimi lea, pau le mea na ou faalogo o fagupia mea ia ua taei, ua tauai tagata i fagupia.”

7. Damien Tovios evidence was consistent with that of the security guard. He said that on the night in question he was on duty watching over the boat while it was moored at Salelologa Wharf. He heard the sound of cars colliding, looked over and saw vehicles had become involved in an accident. Not long after he saw a person come running into the wharf compound. His evidence from page 5 is as follows:

“E lei leva na lavea taavale ae ulu mai loa ma si uso lea na sau e fiaola mai. Ou tamoe atu loa i lalo, ou fesili atu iai pe iai se mea o manao ai ae fai mai e fia ola. E manaomia se fesoasoani. Na ou autilo atu loa ile pa main gate i Mulifanua o la ua oo mai totonu le susuga ia Samaoso ma Pauli Ioane, la e uu mai la ma’a.”

8. So he then took the running man into the boat, hid him and came out and was confronted by the two defendants who were drunk:

“Ia ou alu atu loa le faafetaui Samaoso ma Pauli Ioane, ona ou fai atu loa lea iai e agai i fafo e le mafai ona oo mai seisi i totonu o le lotoa la e iloa e faasa. Ae fai mai faamatalga a Samaoso ma Pauli Ioane oute makamaka ile mea ouke faia ia a’u pe a iloa ifo I leisi aso ga ou faalafia le tagata lea . Ae ou fai atu iai e agai i fafo la e faasuaava, e agai i fafo ma le pa o la e silafia lelei a e faasa.

Fesili faaauau

Tali agai loa lea i fafo, o atu loa fai le la galuega lea o le susunuina o le taavale lea nai fafo. O le taavale la e tu ae faasaga mai le uafu.

Fesili e mafai ona e faamatalaina gaioiga sa fai ile taavale?

Tali sa tauai muamua le taavale

Fesili o ai lea e faia tulaga na?

Tali na fai uma e laua

Fesili o a mea lea e te vaai atu lea e tauai ai le taavale?

Tali o atigifagu ma ala.

Fesili faaauau

Tali uma na tauai ua leaga uma le tino le taavale, taei moli, taei faamalama, vaai atu ua saesae e Samaoso pepa, saesae agai ia Pauli ona momono loa lea e Pauli agai le tane penisini o le taavale o na tutu loa lea.

Fesili o ai na tutuina?

Tali o Pauli Ioane

Fesili o lea na e taua na saesae e Samaoso ia pepa, o a ituaiga pepa?

Tali pepa atigipusa eena.”

He goes on to describe how the police and the fire brigade arrived and extinguished the blazing car.

9. Samaoso elected to give evidence and in his evidence denied all this testimony. He said it was Pauli who torched the vehicle and not him and it was Pauli who did most of these things not him. But he admitted to assaulting the other occupant of the vehicle.
10. However no other witness supports your testimony Samaoso and I have no reason to doubt what the security guard and the engineer told the court. There are minor inconsistencies between what they told the court and their police statements. But they are exactly that-minor and cause me no concern. And they relate to subsidiary matters. On the main parts their evidence was entirely consistent with what they told the police. I also note that Samaoso in his evidence in cross examination admitted he was angry at the time because of the accident. At page 26 of his evidence:

“Fesili ina ua e tei e sa’o pe a ou faapea atu sa lagona lou ita I le tagata lea sa aveina le taavale? Sa iai ou lagona le fiafia ona ua e lavea fua?

Tali o lea lava, sa iai lagona ia te au o le tiga aua na manu e fano ai lou ola.”

11. He also admits at page 30 of his evidence that he was intoxicated the evening in question:

“Fesili e fia au fagumalosi sa inu?

Tali e tasi le fagu malosi sa inu ae lei uma foi e lei afa

Fesili o le a le ituaiga fagu malosi?

Tali o le fagu vodka lapoa

Fesili afai e afa le fagu na e taumafaina o lona uiga ua leva ona e taumafaina le ava?

Tali e toatolu matou sa inua

Fesili o lona uiga a ou fika atu iai o lea sa e faasuava?

Tali ioe, sa ou faasuaava.”

These all support the prosecution case Samaoso.

12. There are seven charges against Samaoso. First one is S1227/16 of causing actual bodily harm to Paika Paika, he has pleaded guilty to that.
13. The next is S1066/16 that he was armed with a dangerous weapon namely an empty Vailima bottle. The evidence on this issue is not clear. Neither of the two eye witnesses saw you with a beer bottle in your possession pre-incident. I am not satisfied to the required standard that you were therefore armed without a lawful purpose, that information against you is dismissed.
14. But both witnesses were very clear and agree you were throwing empty bottles at the vehicle and the occupant at some stage. Accordingly I found you guilty on S1067/16 a charge of throwing an object namely a Vailima bottle to the danger of a vehicle.
15. S1065/16 is a charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely a stone. There is a difference in the evidence of the two witnesses. One said only Pauli had the rocks the other said you both had rocks. I will give you the benefit of a reasonable doubt in respect of that evidence, not guilty on that charge, it is dismissed.
16. Information S1229/16 of willful trespass onto the wharf compound owned by the Samoa Shipping Corporation. Plenty of evidence to support that charge, guilty.
17. S1068/16 using threatening words against the two men, again the evidence of both witnesses is consistent. They were threatened by you and Pauli On that charge I find you guilty.
18. On the final charge S1063/16 of intentionally damaging by fire the Toyota pickup vehicle. Again the two witnesses are in agreement that you played a part in burning of this vehicle. On that charge there is enough evidence to convict you and I find you guilty on that charge.
19. O lona uiga o le aofaiga o moliaga e sefulutasi (11) Samaoso o lea ua faataatia ese e le Faamasinoga le ono (6). Ao lea ua faamaonia lau solitulafono i moliaga e lima (5). O le a tolopo le tatou mataupu sei aumai se lipoti mai le Ofisa o le Loia Sili e faatatau iai se faaiuga mo lau mataupu. Atonu ua aoga lau tete’e o lea ua alu ese isi moliaga ao lea e totoe isi moliaga ae feololo le matuia o mea ia e totoe e faasaga i lau susuga. O le aso lea o le a tolopo iai lau mataupu o le aso 05 o Me 2017 i le ta o le 10:00 i le taeao e lau ai le faaiuga o lau mataupu.
    

JUSTICE NELSON