Police v PS [2018] WSSC 63 (25 April 2018)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v PS [2018] WSSC 63

Case name:	Police v PS
Citation:	[2017] WSSC 63
Decision date:	25 April 2018
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) PS a male. (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):	-
File number(s):	S307/18, S306/18, S325/18
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	For the charge of attempted murder you will be convicted and sentenced to 9 years in prison. On the charge of causing your wife grievous bodily harm which has a 10 year maximum penalty I accept the prosecution submission a 5 year start point is applicable. As with the attempted murder charge I upgrade that to 6 years because of the particular circumstances of the matter. On that charge convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison, concurrent term. On the final charge of armed with a dangerous weapon, that is a superfluous charge it is dismissed. The end result of all this PS is for this matter you will be convicted and ordered to serve 9 years in prison, remand in custody time to be deducted
Representation:	L Sio for prosecution Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords:	Attempted murder – grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon – suppression order – stab wounds – medical report – unconscious – domestic violence – pre-sentence report – pleaded guilty – holding accountable for your actions – denounce conduct – have regard to gravity and seriousness of offending – ripple effect – message must be unequivocal – aggravating factors – vulnerability – possession of a knife – pre-meditated aspect – merciless attack – vulnerable areas of body – permanent damage – victim impact report – maximum penalty of life imprisonment – serious and life threatening injuries – savagery of defendants attack on defenceless woman – reconciliation – recent conviction – convicted and sentenced – remand in custody time – superfluous charge – dismissed
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF ALL PARTIES AND OF ANY DETAILS CAPABLE OF LEADING TO THEIR INDENTIFICATION IS PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO s.56(1) (b) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

PS a male.
Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 25 April 2018

SENTENCE

1. The defendant is a 33 year old male married with two children. He has pleaded guilty to attempting to murder his wife, to causing grievous bodily harm to her and to being armed with a dangerous weapon namely a kitchen knife. In the interests of the wife and children I issue a suppression order prohibiting publication of the names and other details of all parties involved in this case. That includes publication of such details on Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and all other forms of social media. This case is to be reported in the Law Reports as Police v PS.
2. The police summary of facts accepted by the defendant this morning says that prior to the incident before the court, the defendant and his wife “had issues regarding their marriage.” This led to the wife taking the children and moving to Vaimoso to live with an auntie. These issues do not appear to be new because when interviewed by the Probation Office the defendants brother said he was aware the couple were having marital problems.
3. On Friday, 12^th of January the victim went to work at the Accident Compensation building on Main Beach Road, where she is an office assistant. This was between 7:00 and 7:30 am in the morning. The defendant also went to the ACB building. Obviously he well knew his wifes daily routine. He told the probation office that he carried with him a knife “that he had picked up from his fence.”
4. The summary of facts says that he sat next to her and started questioning her about various marital matters. An argument ensued and the victim stood up to leave. According to the summary the defendant grabbed her hand-bag and slapped her. He then pulled out his knife and stabbed her numerous times. The medical report on the victim notes multiple stab wounds including to the left jaw, right side of the neck, left upper breast down to her rib-bones, left forearm also right down to the bone, left lower abdomen and left thigh. By my count that is at least six separate stabs inflicted by the defendant although the medical report refers to other injuries suggesting there were more than six stabs.
5. It is a miracle no major arteries or internal organs were affected. According to the summary of facts some of these wounds were delivered while the victim was lying on the ground unconscious. After he attacked his wife the defendant left the scene leaving the woman lying bleeding on the sidewalk. He told the probation office he went home. It was onlookers who rushed to the aid of the injured lady and took her to hospital where her wounds were treated.
6. The summary of facts goes on to say the defendant stabbed himself with the same knife. But I do not accept that. Because the defendant told the probation office that he slipped on his way home after the attack and accidently stabbed himself in the stomach.
7. This is a case of domestic violence at its worst. The defendant went to the scene of this incident on the morning in question carrying a knife clearly intending to use it. That is why he has pleaded guilty to attempting to kill her. He attempts in the probation office pre-sentence report to put the blame of this matter on his wifes unfaithfulness but there is no evidence to support that suggestion and the court completely rejects it. As it rejects his efforts in the pre-sentence report to put the blame of everything else on his wife. You sir are not the victim, your wife is. You were not the one stabbed more than six times and left to die on the side of the road, your wife was.
8. The purpose of sentencing you for your offences includes holding you accountable for your actions and the harm you caused to your wife. Also to denounce your conduct and to deter you and other males from this sort of behaviour. The court must also have regard to the gravity and seriousness of this kind of offending.
9. Many studies and statistics show domestic violence is a scourge in the community that we live in and shows no sign of abating. The damage that domestic violence inflicts on families and victims is akin to a stone being cast into the still waters of a lake. It has a ripple effect not only upon those immediately affected but on all those surrounding them. And its spread is capable of reaching the remote corner of every family and community. The message from the courts of this country must be unequivocal and must continue to be sent to the public and to people like this defendant. This sort of behaviour is deserving of only one punishment, a term of imprisonment reflecting the circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the conduct of the offender.
10. Among the aggravating factors of the offending is firstly the vulnerability of the victim who was unarmed and no doubt completely unaware the defendant was in possession of a knife that morning, plus the fact that some of these stabs were delivered while she lay defenceless on the ground. There is also the pre-meditated aspect of the attack because the defendant came armed and sought out his wife. If by-standers had not intervened this merciless attack could possibly have carried on. There is also the fact that multiple stabs were delivered by the defendant and to vulnerable areas of the body - the face, the neck, the chest and the abdomen.
11. Relevant also is the depth of some of the wounds, in the case of the wound to the upper breast the medical report says it extended down to the womans ribs. And the wound to her left forearm went down to the bone. This is indicative of the force and fury involved in the attack. An attack that has caused some permanent damage because the Victim Impact Report contains the following passage:

“O le taimi nei ua sologa manuia, sei vagana ai lo’u ua i le itu taumatau ua pe atoa ai lava, ma le itu taumatau o lo’u ulu. Ou te faalogoina le tiga ma le maini pe a femilosa’i. A oo foi ina mageso ma tago e valu ou te lagonaina lava le tiga.”

12. I will deal with the most serious charge first that of attempted murder which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. For that charge the prosecution have sought a 10 year start point for sentence. I accept that and propose to follow what I did in Police v Soi [2014] WSSC 191 a case with very similar facts which surprisingly was not cited by the prosecution in their submissions. That was a case of a husband who went to the wifes workplace armed with a knife and caused her serious and life threatening injuries. As was done there I upgrade the start point by 3 years to reflect the savagery of the defendants attack on a defenceless woman using a weapon that he pre-carried to the scene. That also reflects the fact that you rendered no assistance after you attacked the woman and left her on the sidewalk to die. Start point for sentence will therefore be 13 years in prison.
13. There will be deducted from that to take into consideration mitigating factors in your favour. You are not a first offender, the pre-sentence refers to a recent conviction for a serious offence. But the report does talk of your service to your family including the victim and your children. I give you a three month deduction for that. There has been a reconciliation, it has been confirmed by your wife who has petitioned the court for leniency. In that petition she says she still loves you. But my advice to her is this is a man who tried to kill you, next time he may succeed. If you love your children you should have nothing further to do with this man. Notwithstanding that you are entitled to credit for the reconciliation and your apology which you reiterated this morning. For that I will deduct a further 3 months. Those deductions total 6 months deducted from 13 years, leaves a balance of 12½ years.
14. Final deduction you are eligible for is for your guilty plea. This is a significant matter because it shows your remorse and it has saved the courts time and limited resources in having to have a trial. More importantly it has spared your wife having to relive this horrible experience. I will therefore give you full credit for that plea and deduct 3½ years from your balance of sentence, leaves 9 years in prison. For the charge of attempted murder you will be convicted and sentenced to 9 years in prison.
15. On the charge of causing your wife grievous bodily harm which has a 10 year maximum penalty I accept the prosecution submission a 5 year start point is applicable. As with the attempted murder charge I upgrade that to 6 years because of the particular circumstances of the matter. On that charge convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison, concurrent term.
16. On the final charge of armed with a dangerous weapon, that is a superfluous charge it is dismissed.
17. The end result of all this PS is for this matter you will be convicted and ordered to serve 9 years in prison, remand in custody time to be deducted.
    

JUSTICE NELSON