You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
Supreme Court of Samoa >>
2019 >>
[2019] WSSC 87
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Police v Taleni [2019] WSSC 87 (20 November 2019)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taleni [2019] WSSC 87
Case name: | Police v Taleni |
|
|
Citation: | |
|
|
Decision date: | 20 November 2019 |
|
|
Parties: | POLICE (Informant) and TUIMANU’A TALENI, male of Fagalii-uta & Saleaaumua (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: | The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows: (i) 16 months’ supervision; (ii) Attend an anger management program recommended by Probation; and (iii) The defendant to serve 80 hours’ community service. |
|
|
Representation: | Q Sauaga for Prosecution T Leavai for the Defendant |
|
|
Catchwords: | grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon – early guilty plea – first offender – remorseful |
|
|
Words and phrases: |
|
|
|
Legislation cited: | |
|
|
Cases cited: |
|
|
|
Summary of decision: |
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU
BETWEEN:
P O L I C E
Prosecution
AND:
TUIMANU’A TALENI, male of Fagalii-uta and Saleaaumua
Defendant
Counsel: Q Sauaga for Prosecution
T Leavai for the Defendant
Sentence: 20 November 2019
SENTENCING OF TUATAGALOA J
- The defendant appears for sentencing on the charge of grievous bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of ten (10) years’
imprisonment;[1] and armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a golf club which offending carries a maximum penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment.[2]
The offending (in summary)[3]
- The defendant was a bus driver at the time of the offending and the victim was driving a taxi. On the morning of the incident at
around 8.30am both the defendant and the victim were on the road going around the town clock. They had an exchange on the road which
led to the incident when they both stopped at the traffic lights at Maluafou. While they were at the lights, the defendant whose
bus was behind the victim’s taxi got out with a golf club and walked over to the victim’s side of the vehicle. Inside
the victim’s vehicle were three men whom he said worked for him as carpenters. These men got out of the taxi and led the defendant
away from the taxi back to his bus. At that time, the victim got out of the taxi; took out a spirit level (fuavai) from the boot
of his vehicle and walked over to where the defendant was with his men. The defendant saw the victim walking over with the spirit
level and (as I accepted at the disputed facts hearing) they both struck at each other at the same time. As a result, the tips of
the victim’s 3rd and 4th fingers on his left hand were badly injured, they were found to be non-viable and were severed at the hospital.
Victim impact report
- The victim does not say how (if any) the injuries to the tips of his 3rd and 4th fingers on his left hand have had a negative impact on his livelihood or quality of life. I can only assume since the victim does
not mention anything it would mean that any negative impact is very minimal as to whatever he does for a living. From the summary
of facts, he is a carpenter and also drives a taxi.
The defendant
- The accused is 37 years’ old from the villages of Fagalii-uta and Saleaumua, Aleipata. He is married with an 8 year old son.
The defendant from the pre-sentence report is well educated right up to secondary education; he also attended a Bible Training School
in American Samoa and upon returning to Samoa has managed to secure various jobs one of which is driving a bus for his Pentecostal
Church. Attached to his pre-sentence report are written testimonials from his wife, church, former and current employer who all spoke
of his good qualities.
- The following are mitigating factors in favour of the defendant:
- (i) He is a first offender;
- (ii) He pleaded guilty;
- (iii) He is remorseful.
- The Prosecution in light of the outcome of the disputed facts hearing reviewed and amended its sentencing memorandum and seeks for
a non-custodial sentence.
- Two of the aggravating factors on the impact of the offending and the continuous attack (submitted by prosecution) cannot be sustained
with the facts and circumstances of this particular offending:
- (i) As I mentioned before the victim did not make reference to how the injuries to his fingers impacted on the quality of his life
and work. The victim only spoke of the financial impact I highly doubt and find the mention of a $400 medical bill as absurd as treatment
at the National Hospital is only $5 or $10 and with the cost of medication on top, it will still not come to such an amount. Furthermore,
the victim did not say in the VIR of any psychological impact of the injuries on him.
- (ii) There was no continuous attack.
- The mitigating factors personal to the defendant are his early guilty plea and first offender status. There is nothing adverse said
or provided by the prosecution about the accused previous good character. I will allow considerable discounts for those two. The
victim confirmed an apology by the defendant to him when he was remanded on bail.
- What took place on this day was very unfortunate. Both the defendant and the victim were angry and had total disregard towards the
public or other road users that morning. Their vehicles were both stationary at the traffic lights when the incident took place.
They each had an opportunity to walk away but chose not to. In saying that, the defendant is the one who approached the victim first;
if he had not approached nothing would have happened.
- The circumstances of this offending in my view does not warrant a custodial sentence but a longer supervision term and for the defendant
to attend an anger management program. The defendant is hereby warned that should he appear again before this Court with similar
offending the only option available to him will be prison.
- The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
- (i) 16 months’ supervision;
- (ii) Attend an anger management program recommended by Probation; and
- (iii) The defendant to serve 80 hours’ community service.
JUSTICE TUATAGALOA
[1] Crimes Act 2013, section 118(1)
[2] Police Offences Ordinance 1961, section 25
[3] Refer to Summary of Facts for full set of facts
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2019/87.html