Police v Fonoti [2020] WSSC 46 (12 August 2020)

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
POLICE v FONOTI [2020] WSSC 46

Case name:	POLICE v FONOTI
Citation:	[2020] WSSC 46
Ruling date:	12 August 2020
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) v PAULO ILALIO FONOTI male of Nuufou and Afega Accused
Submissions date(s):	21 July 2020
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	The Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren
On appeal from: Order:	1. For the foregoing reasons, the section 136(4)(b) CPA 2016 application by the Prosecution to order a retrial where the verdict is not guilty is denied. The not guilty verdict handed down by the assessors in relation to the charges of rape and sexual connection with a young person by way of digital penetration remains and the accused is acquitted of both charges against him.
Representation:	A Matalasi for the Prosecution I Sapolu for the Accused
Catchwords:	Concurrence – onus of proof – sexual connection – digital penetration – maximum penalty –
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, section 49(1)(a) and 52(1)
Cases cited:	Attorney General and Sefo [2009] WSCA 7, Attorney General v Otto[2009] WSCA 6, Attorney General v Crichton[2014] WSCA 8 and Police v Nauer [2016] WSSC 188 Attorney General v Crichton [2014] WSCA 8
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

PAULO ILALIO FONOTI male of Nuufou and Afega
Accused

Counsel:
A Matalasi for Prosecution
I Sapolu for the Accused

Ruling: 12 August 2020

RESERVED RULING OF TUALA-WARREN J IN RELATION TO AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 136(4) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2016.

Introduction

1. The accused is charged with one count of rape pursuant to sections 49(1)(a) and 52(1) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum imprisonment term of life imprisonment and one count of sexual connection with a young person by way of digital penetration which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
2. The charges arise from allegations that the accused raped and digitally penetrated his biological daughter Dawline on 9 April 2019.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and an assessor trial proceeded before me on 10 and 11 June 2020.
4. The assessors returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty to both charges.
5. Prosecution applied to make submissions under section 136(4) Criminal Procedure Act 2016 (‘CPA 2016’) for me to consider the verdict.
6. I heard submissions from Counsel on 21 July 2020.
7. This is my ruling.

Law

8. Section 136 of the CPA 2016 states;

136. Concurrence of assessors - (1) On a trial before a Judge and assessors, a defendant is not to be convicted of any offence unless the conviction is concurred by at least 4 assessors.

(2) If the assessors cannot reach a verdict on a matter charged within what is in the opinion of the trial Judge a reasonable time (which may not be less than 5 hours) the Judge must enquire of the assessors as to the likelihood of their reaching a verdict.

(3) If the Judge is of the opinion that there is no reasonable prospect of a verdict, the assessors must be discharged upon which the Judge may order a new trial.

(4) If the presiding Judge is of the opinion that the assessors verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, the presiding Judge may:

(a) acquit the defendant if the verdict is guilty; or

(b) order a new trial if the verdict is not guilty. [my emphasis]

9. Prior to the CPA 2016, Courts in Samoa have only dealt with considering and assessing an assessors’ verdict of guilty as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act 1972 (‘CPA 1972’). The approach of the Courts to overturning a guilty verdict by assessors is found in the cases of Attorney General and Sefo [2009] WSCA 7, Attorney General v Otto[2009] WSCA 6, Attorney General v Crichton[2014] WSCA 8 and Police v Nauer [2016] WSSC 188. These cases were decided under section 100 of CPA 1972.
10. Section 100 of the CPA 1972 stated;

100. Concurrence of presiding judge- if the presiding judge is of the opinion that the defendant should not be convicted, .... the defendant shall be acquitted.

11. In relation to why there is no equivalent in New Zealand legislation, the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Crichton [2014] WSCA 8 stated;

In New Zealand a verdict is given by a jury of 12 or a large majority of such a jury. There is in that setting not the need for the protective function of s100 that has been seen as desirable in Samoa, where there is a much smaller group of fact-finders. It is understandable that where the decision is made by a larger number and the judge has a discretion, the New Zealand jurisprudence encourages the judge not to intervene after a verdict and to leave matters to take their course on any appeal. But in Samoa the position is different and s100 requires the judge to form his own opinion. There is no discretion given.

12. Justice Nelson in Police v Nauer [2016] WSSC 188 said of the approach to section 100;

The tests to be applied when considering whether to set aside the verdict of a panel of assessors have been laid out in Attorney General v Sefo[2009] WSCA 7 and Attorney General v Otto[2009] WSCA 6, revisited without alteration recently in Attorney General v Crichton[2014] WSCA 8. I remind myself setting aside the verdict is not an exercise to be undertaken lightly and is done only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

13. In Attorney General v Sefo [2009] WSCA 7;

6.The governing words of s 100 are "if the presiding judge is of the opinion that the defendant should not be convicted." Read alone they contain no constraint on how the judge should form the opinion beyond the constitutional presumption that it should be based on admissible evidence and conform with the conventional rules as to onus and standard of proof.

7.Section 99 requires for conviction the concurrence of no less than 3 of 4 (or 4 of 5) assessors. Section 101 states that their concurrence is not necessary for any act of the Supreme Court other than conviction. The word "concurrence" is common to the headings of each of sections 99 – 101 and, if considered, might be seen as a form of scheme defining differing duties and responsibilities. But, although the term "concurrence" does appear in the substance of ss 99 and 101 (although not 100), the headings may not be used in the interpretation of Section 100 (Acts Interpretation Act s5 (e)). Judicial ‘concurrence’ is not required upon a verdict by assessors of acquittal.

8.The combined effect of the above sections, when read together, is to strengthen the interpretation that the trial judge must undertake the very process required by the assessors: to make a personal decision whether the charge has been proved and, if not, to acquit. In the case of difference as to acquittal the opinion of the trial judge prevails.

9.We have no doubt that the power to veto a conviction, conferred on the judge by s 100, was enacted deliberately as a balance to the relatively small number of assessors. Section 100 operates as a safeguard in cases where the dynamic of a small group might disadvantage an accused in a difficult trial. The safeguard is not a reflection on assessors but acknowledgment of the central tenet of criminal justice requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. The test of ‘opinion’ is limited to acquittal and is constrained by judicial not personal responsibility. It cannot be exercised by whim or caprice and must be grounded on evidence or its absence.

14. In Attorney General v Crichton, the Court of Appeal stated;

What the section requires of the judge if the assessors return a guilty````````````````````````````````` verdict is quite plain. The judge is under a duty in that circumstance to form an opinion as to whether the defendant should not be convicted and, if so, the judge must acquit the defendant. It is not merely a requirement that the judge should consider whether a reasonable panel of assessors could have reached a guilty verdict, but of whether the judge himself holds the opinion that guilt has not been proven to the requisite standard. If the judge’s opinion is that it has not been proven the judge must intervene. He is not permitted to stand to one side and leave the overturning of the assessors’ decision to the appeal court. But, as the Sefo Court emphasised, the judge’s opinion must be based on the admissible evidence and the conventional onus and standard of proof.

15. The Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Otto [2009] WSCA 6(9 October 2009) stated in relation to the trial Judge’s assessment of his intervention:

We agree with the question he posed to himself as to how the trial judge should reach an opinion required by the legislative provision. He regarded it as a ‘safety value reserved to .... a trained qualified practitioner of the law ... with years of experience and knowledge of criminal cases and evidentiary matters’. He accepted that "the exercise ... should not be undertaken lightly but where it is necessary the judge’s duty is to intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice."

16. I am also unable to find any case in Samoa in which a presiding judge has exercised the jurisdiction under section 136(4) (b) of the CPA 2016, to order a retrial if the verdict is not guilty. Perhaps it is because of the recentness of the CPA 2016.
17. In a recent Court of Appeal ruling, Samuelu v Attorney General (August 2020) the Court of Appeal dealt with an appeal against conviction on the basis of the asessors guilty verdict being unreasonable. The Court of Appeal stated;

The effect of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016 is that the only legally possible grounds for an appeal against the verdict of assessors are those contained in s 180(1):

(a) that the verdict of the assessors should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence; or

(b) that the judgment of the Court before which the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law; or

(c) that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice; or

(d) that the trial was a nullity.

[12] As to s 180(1)(a), a verdict is unreasonable only if, having regard to all the evidence, reasonable assessors could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty. And a verdict cannot be challenged on the ground that it was insupportable on the evidence if there was creditable evidence capable of supporting a finding of guilty. This Court will therefore intervene under s 180(1)(a) if, but only if, reasonable assessors ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. It would not be enough for this Court to simply disagree with their verdict.

[21] It was open to the assessors to accept that evidence, and to reject the version given by the appellant at trial, if they chose to do so. It was also open to the assessors to infer from that evidence that the appellant intended to kill or to injure knowing that it was likely to cause death and being reckless whether death ensued or not.

[22] In those circumstances it could not be said that the verdict of the assessors was unreasonable or unsupported by available evidence. The same applies to the decision of the Judge not to interfere in the assessor verdict in the exercise of her power to do so under s 136(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016. (my emphasis)

18. In Chea v R [2016] NZCA 207 (19 May 2016), the New Zealand Court of Appeal stated;

Under s 232(2)(a) of the CPA (NZ) the Court must allow an appeal if satisfied that, having regard to the evidence, the jury’s verdict was unreasonable. The applicable principles are summarised in the judgment of this Court in Wiley v R. The Supreme Court in Owen v R emphasised that there is no practical distinction between an unreasonable verdict and one that t be supposupported having regard to the evidence^. A guilty verdict based on no or insufficient evidence must necely be an unreasonable verdict. The Court must perform a reva review function, and cannot just substitute its own view of the evidence. The Court will not lightly interfere with the verdict and will only allow an appeal where satisfied that no jury applying the criminal standard of proof could reasonably have reached a guilty verdict on the evidence.

19. Section 232 provides;

First appeal court to determine appeal (1) A first appeal court must determine a first appeal under this subpart in accordance with this section. (2) The first appeal court must allow a first appeal under this subpart if satisfied that,— (a) in the case of a jury trial, having regard to the evidence, the jury’s verdict was unreasonable; or (b) in the case of a Judge-alone trial, the Judge erred in his or her assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred; or (c) in any case, a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason. (3) The first appeal court must dismiss a first appeal under this subpart in any other case. (4) In subsection (2), miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that— (a) has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected; or (b) has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity. (5) In subsection (4), trial includes a proceeding in which the appellant pleaded guilty.

20. The Supreme Court R v Owen [2007] NZSC 102; [2008] 2 NZLR 37 succiently stated;

“There is, in the end, no need to depart from the language of Parliament. The question is whether the verdict is unreasonable. That is the question the Court of Appeal must answer. The only necessary elaboration is that expressed earlier, namely that a verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the accused was guilty. We do not consider it helpful to employ other language such as unsafe, unsatisfactory or dangerous to convict. These words express the consequence of the verdict being unreasonable. They should not be used as tests in themselves”.

Evidence

21. The evidence which was heard in the trial is the evidence offered by the Prosecution given by the alleged victim, the mother of the alleged victim, and a doctor.
    
22. The evidence of the alleged victim Dorleen, born 7 July 2006, and was 12 years old at the time of the offending, is;

Pros: E mafai la ona tago oe e faamatala mai. Amata mai a ile amataga, faagesegese le faiga o lou molimau ia ma leotele. Faamatala mai faagesegese le mafuaaga lea ua tulai ai oe, ia faamatala loa.

Wit: Mai ile 10 o o’u tausaga sa tupu ai le mea, ga tago lo’u tamā tutui la’u pi i lona lima. O’o mai loa i leisi aso i lesi po ga, ole po ole aso Lua lea na maua ai loa e lo’u tinā, na tago lo’u tamā tutui lo’u pi i lana lima, na tago faavā ia lo’u muli ae momogo maiai lana pi agai totonu o lo’u pi.

Pros: Lea na tā’ua e oe le aso Lua, e mafai ona e tago e faamatala mai poo lea le mea lea na tupu ile aso Lua lea na ta’u e oe, amata mai a ile amataga lea le mea na tupu?

Wit: Tusa ole po ole aso Lua, sa matou momoe ai ma nai o’u tei ae valaau mai lo’u tamā oute aluatu e valu lana tua, ou latu loa valu lana tua ma o’u moe ifo ai io i lana moega.

Pros: Faamanatu atu e tatau ona faagesegese le faiga o lau molimau, ia faaauau.

Wit: Ma ou moe atu ai io i lana moega ae oute leiloa le taimi na tago tatala i lo’u ofuvae, na tago aumai lana lima tutui ai la’u pi ou faliu loa ile autafa ile agavale ia tago loa faavā ia lo’u muli ae momogo maiai laga pi agai totonu o lo’u pi.

Pros: Vaai ane oe i totonu ole tusiata na, tago e toe susue ifo, le vaega lena? O iloa atu e oe le vaega na lea faimai lou tala na valaau atu ia lou tama e valu le tua?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: E iloa atu e oe le mea lea na iai lou tamā ae lae valaau atu ia oe e valu lona tua?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: Tago la e maka ane ile letter ‘F’

Marking the document

Pros: Ia na uma loa laia na valu le patua, olea le isi mea na tupu?

Wit: Uma a alu loa taele, uma a na taele sau loa ma momoe faatasi ae oute leiloa le taimi na tago tatala ai lo’u ofuvae, tago loa aumai lana lima tutui ai la’u pi

Pros: Faafefea ona iloa e oe olea ua matala lou ofuvae?

Wit: Na ou iloa ile taimi lea na o’u te’i ai i luga.

Pros: Ina ua e te’i i luga olea le mea na tupu ile taimi na e te’i ai i luga?

Wit: Taimi na o’u tei ai i luga ae sau lo’u tinā ti le molī ae tilotilo atu lae telenoa lo’u tamā, ole taimi lena na o’u te’i ai i luga.

Pros Ae lei oo ile taimi lea na alu atu ai lou tinā? Olea leisi mea na tupu ina ua uma ona e faalogo lea na ta’u e oe i lau mau faimai na tuitui lau pi, ia olea le isi mea na sosoo ai ina ua uma le mea na?

Wit: Na o’u faatafa loa ile agavale ae tago faavā ia lo’u muli ae momogo mai lana pi agai totonu o la’u pi.

Pros: Dorlene sei toe vaai ane a oe i ata na e lua, o iloa atu e oe le vaega ole fale lea ete faasaga agai iai? Lea ua uma loa ona tutui le pi, e iloa atu iina le vaega ole fale lea na e faasaga agai iai?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: Mafai ona tago oe e maka ifo ile ‘G’.

Marking the document

Pros: Lea na faimai oe i lau molimau na tago ai Paulo faavā ia lou muli, ma tuu atu lana pi i totonu o lou pi, manatua e oe lau faamatalaga lena?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: Olea lana mea na fai ile taimi lea na tuu ai lana pi i totonu o lou pi?

Wit: Na tago so’a.

Pros: Olea le uiga o lau tala so’a?

Wit: Na tago so’a foi nale. Na tago momogo i totonu.

Pros: Mafai na e tago e faataitai mai le tala a oe lea na faimai na so’a?

Wit: Tusa o lo’u pi lea ae tago momogo i totonu lana pi so’aso’a ai.

Pros: Dorlene tago e toe faataitai mai le mea lea na fai ananei e oe.

Shows the Demonstration.

Pros: E manatua e oe poo lea le umi na faiai le mea lea na faaali mai e oe le momogoga ole pi i totonu o lau pi?

Wit: Pe 1 le minute.

Pros: Ile taimi lea na tuu ai le pi a Paulo i totonu ole pi a oe? Na e fiafia ai?

Wit: Leai.

Pros: Ete le’i fiafia ai ae na a?

Wit: Oute lei malie ai ona e leaga lana mea na fai ia a’u.

Pros: Ia uma loa laia ona tuu ole pi i totonu o lau pi, olea le isi mea na tupu?

Wit: Na sau loa laia o lo’u tinā e sue sana ieafu sau loa lo’u tina ki le molī ae se’i ese le ieafu ae vaai atu lae telenoa mai lo’u tamā.

Pros: E se’i e lou tinā le ieafu oa ou mea lae fai?

Wit: Leai se mea, na’o lo’u taoto a.

Pros: Ae oa mea a lou tamā lae fai?

Wit: Lae tau sulu lana ie.

Pros: Ia na uma loa laia na se’i e lou tinā le ieafu, olea le isi mea na tupu, faaauau maiai iina le faamatala a oe ile mea lea na tupu?

Wit: Na tu ifo loa i luga lo’u tamā uu le lima a lo’u tinā la o loa i fafo.

Pros: Ia faaauau.

Wit: Na la talanoa laia i fafo.

Pros: Aea oe, olea le mea a e na fai ile taimi lena?

Wit: Leai se mea. Ou tu loa i luga e su’e lo’u ofuvae.

Pros: Taimi lea na tupu ai le mea, ofea lea na iai ou tei?

Wit: O lae momoe i luga ole moega i leisi pito.

Pros: Sei ou fesili atu a ia oe Dorlene, e iloa e oe le mea lea ole palapala masina?

Wit: Ioe.

Wit: Ile tausaga lea na te’a ia Aperila, e manatua e oe o lae fai le palapala masina ooe ile taimi lea?

Wit: Leai.

Pros: Aea le taimi nei?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: Taimi lea ua faiai lou palapala masina, oa mea e faaoga e oe-

Wit: Ole ieie male pads (stayfree)

Pros: Dorlene sei toe foi atu a taua i tua i lau molimau lea na e faimai na tuitui ai lau pi, faamata e iloa e oe pe fia lima ia na tuitui ai le pi a oe?

Wit: E 1.

Pros: Mai ile tuituiina lea ole pi a oe, e mafai ona faataitai mai e oe le tuituiina o lau pi ile lima a Paulo?

Wit: Tusa o la’u pi lea ae ae tago tuitui faapea.

The witness shows demonstration.

Pros: Taimi lea na faataitai maiai e oe le tuituiina o lau, olea se faalogoina ia oe ile taimi lena?

Wit: Tigā.

Pros: Ofea na tigā?

Wit: Totonu o la’u pi.

Pros: Aea le taimi auā lea na faimai le tala a oe lea na momogo atu foi le pi, olea le faalogona ooe ile taimi na momogo atu ai le pi?

Wit: E tigā.

Pros: E tigā fea?

Wit: E tigā totonu o la’u pi.

Pros: Auā lea ua taua e oe le mea lea, manatua e oe oa ofu a oe na fai ile po lea na tupu ale mea lea na faamatala e oe?

Wit: Ole ofuvae male mitiafu.

Pros: Ile taimi lea aua lea na faamatala e oe lea na tuitui lau pi, oa ofu nae fai e oe ile taimi lena?

Wit: Na’o le ofu a luga a.

Pros: Aea le taimi lea na momogo ai le pi i totonu o lau pi, oa ofu a oe na e fai ile taimi lena?

Wit; Nao le mitiafu a.

Pros: Sei ou fesili atu a ia oe, e iai ni taaloga e taalo ai oe?

Wit; Ioe

Pros: Oa taaloga ia?

Wit: Ole lakapi male voli.

Pros: Aea le taimi lea ia Aperila 2019, e iai ni taaloga na taalo ai oe ile taimi lena?

Wit: Leai.

Pros: Ile po lea na tupu ai le mea lea, oai lea na faia le mea lea ia oe?

Wit: O lo’u tamā.

Pros: Faafefea ona e iloa?

Wit: Na o’u faalogo i lona leo lae tale.

Pros: Faimai oe lea na tale, aea le taimi lea na ki ai le molī? E ti ifo le molī oai lae i autafa ooe?

Wit: O lo’u tamā.

Pros: A toe vaai la oe i lou tamā, faamata e maitau e oe foliga o lou tamā?

Wit: Ia.

Pros: Sau i luma ii, a tilotilo la oe i totonu ole potu faamasino pe iloa atu e oe ia lou tamā lea e ta’u e `oe? Faasino le lima ooe?

23. In cross examination, the following evidence was given;

DC: E ti le molī e lou tinā o la ete lua faasaga uma ma lou tamā agai ile mea lea e iai lou tinā?

Wit: Ia. Lae faasaga mai lo’u tamā ia a’u ao la oute taoto sa’o.

DC: Leaga olea na fai le tala a lou tinā o lae na ti le molī o lae ete lua faasasaga uma mai agai ii ile itu lea na aluatu ai naia. Eleo faafesagai ae o lae faasaga mai ile itu lea e aluatu ai ia. Olea la le tala, pepelo lou tinā ae sa’o oe pe ua le manatua e oe?

Wit: Na ma faafesagai ile mea lea e sau ai lo’u tinā.

DC: Olea e faasasaga uma oulua ile mea lea e sau ai lou tinā, aea?

Wit: Ia.

DC: I? A ele manatua faimai oute le’o manatuaina ae aua le faimai i pei ete taumatemate a? Lonauiga la e sa’o olea sa lua faasaga uma ma lou tamā agai io ile mea lea e sau ai lou tinā?

Wit: Ioe.

DC: Na e tago loa lea fai le tala lea i lou tina?

Wit: Ia.

DC: Na e tago loa lea fai tala lē sa’o faimai na tuitui lou pi e lou tamā?

Wit: Ia.

DC: Na e tago foi fai le tala lea faapea na tuu le itutino sa o lou tamā i lou pi?

Wit: Ioe.

DC: Ao lea faatoa e te’i i luga ina ua aluatu lou tinā e ti le molī. A faapea ua e faapea mai pe’a faapea ua tiga a mea na ele ee ai? A mea na e valaau ai ia mum? Olea e tuitui la’u pi, olea ua tiga la’u pi ae ete lei faia a? It didn’t happen, aea?

Wit: Na ou tago o’u fai i lo’u tina.

DC: Ae ua leva lava lena, ina ua talanoa lou tinā ia Mika?

Wit: Leai.

DC: Sa iai Mika i totonu ole tou fale?

Wit: Elei iai Mika ile taimi lea na tupu ai le mea.

DC: Ao Mika lea na vili i leoleo ta’u ai? Oai Mika i lou tinā? O Mika ole boyfriend a lou tinā?

Wit: Leai.

DC: E lei faia e Mika ia te oe?

Wit: Leai

DC: Ao lea ua e sau tuuai lou tamā.

Wit: O lo’u tamā sa tago fai le mea ia a’u.

DC: Oute toe tuuina atu ia oe, e ala ona umi o e tau mafaufau poo lea le mea na tupu, ma e tutu ai a iina ma e toe mafaufau ona o na e pepelo au tala ia e fai e faasaga i lou tamā. Olea lou tali?

Wit: O lo’u tamā na faia le mea lea ia a’u.

AND later;

DC: Ete lei fiafia i lou tamā, aea?

Wit: Ioe.

DC: Ile taimi lena ete lei fiafia i lou tamā ona ea?

Wit: Ioe.

DC: Aisea?

Wit: Ona e leaga lana mea na fai ia te a’u.

DC: Ete lei fiafia i lou tamā ona ole faatonu outou e lou tamā, aea? Ae ooe a ete le fiafia. Out of all the children, ooe a ete lē fiafia i lou tamā, aea? Ete le fiafia i lou tamā ona e iai foi le isi tagata lea e igoa ia Mika lea na hang around ile tou fale, aea? Mika? Oai e aluatu ai Mika, ooe poo lou tinā?

Wit: Leai. Ole uo masani a lo’u tamā.

DC: Ia ae iai taimi masani na aluatu ai Mika ae leo io lou tama, oai lae aluatu ai Mika, ooe poo lou tinā? Ete iloaina o Mika lea na aumaia oe ile ofisa o leoleo?

Wit: O Mika na sau vili mai leoleo aluatu loa le taavale leoleo aumai matou.

DC: Na ete iloa lelei a, o lae manao Mika e loka lou tamā-

OBJECTION

Pros: Your Honour I wonder if that’s a fair question.

HH: She wouldn’t know what’s on Mika’s mind.

DC: Ete iloa pe na manao Mika e loka lou tamā ae faaauau fesootaiga ma lou tinā?

Wit: Leai, o Mika ose tagata e alofa iai matou, matou aiga. A leai se matou tupe, e sau Mika aumai le tupe e aai ai matou, a leai foi se tupe matou o ai ile aoga, e sau foi aumai.

DC: Meatonu a lena lea ua faiai au tuuaiga nei i lou tamā, ona ua suamalie tupe mai ia Mika, aea?

Wit: Leai.

DC: A na ua e faimai e alofa ia outou. Eleo mafuaaga ea lena lea ua tou faia ai nei tuuaiga faapea e faasaga ile tou tamā?

Wit: O Mika e alofa ia matou ona e sauā lo’u tamā, tago loa fai le mea leaga lea ia te a’u, alofa loa i lo’u tinā lae vaai atu lae tagi lo’u tinā ma share ai loa le mea lea na tupu ia Mika alu loa Mika vili leoleo lea ua mafua ai loa ona o’u sau.

DC: Na e vaai ia Mika lata mai nei a?

Wit: Olea le uiga o lou fesili?

DC: Sa e vaai ia Mika ananei?

Wit: Ia.

DC: Ofea sa e vaai ai ia Mika?

Wit: Sa o’u vaai ai io ile matou fale.

DC: Sa e vaai ia Mika ananafi?

Wit: Ia.

DC: Ofea sa e vaai ai ia Mika?

Wit: Sa ou vaai ai ananafi i luma ole auala lae alu i lana faatoaga.

DC: O tuuaiga nei ua e faia e faasaga i lou tamā ona ua e faapea ane o lou tamā e sauā ao Mika e lelei, tou fafaua loa tuuaiga leaga ile tou tamā, olea sau tali?

Wit: Ona ole matou tamā ele alofa ia matou lana fanau.

DC: That’s it. O lau vaai ele alofa lou tamā ia outou, fafau loa male mea lea, a? Fafau loa ma lenei pepelo?

Wit: Leai.

DC: Ao lea e iai ma Mika i totonu? Ia e ta’u atu, olea ia te a’u pepa o molimau a loia ole malō e faasaga i lou tamā, olea foi e iai le igoa o Mika Filipo i totonu ole lisi lea, ao lea ua le oo mai ile faamasinoga? Taatia atu iina auā lea ua iloa atu i lau faamatalaga lena Dorlene, ete fiafia ile tagata e avatua tupe ma mea lelei, ma lē fasia oe and so forth ae ete ita i lou tamā. Mafuaaga tonu lava lena ua tuuaina ai moliaga nei. Thank you, Your Honour, no further questions.

24. According to the mother of the alleged victim;

Pros: E mafai ona faamatala ile faamaisnoga poo le a lou aafiaga i le mataupu lea.

Wit: I lo’u ava ma lo’u faaaloalo oute tulai ai e molimau e faasaga i lo’u toalua faaipoipo o Paulo Ilalio Fonoti. O le mataupu o loo o’u molimauina lenei itula o Dorelene. O Paulo o le ma tama teine lea o Dorelene, o le aso 9 Aperila 2019 na tupu ai lea mataupu i totonu lava o le matou fale i Nuufou. Na ou manatuaina le aso 9 Aperila ole Aso Lua lea 2019, nao maua lava ma la’u fanau totonu o le matou fale i lea po. Na uma loa le matou faigalotu fai ma le matou meaai, uma le matou meaai matou omai agai luma o le maotu fale ma matamata le matou tv. Na matamata le tv ao la oute taotooto i luga o le moega ma matamata le matou tv ma la’u fanau. Na ou faagalegale moe ae ou faalogoina lo’u toalua o savali agai tua ifo o le moega e sue lona ie afu, na ou lagonaina foi Paulo la e savali e sue lona solo e tapuni ai le malamalama o le moli ile faitotoa o le matou fale ma savali mai loa Paulo ma taoto ile moega. E lei umi se taimi o o’u taoto i lo’u moega ua gase la’u moe ae ou faalogoina loa ua maluluina lo’u tino ua ou lagona e aumai lo’u ie afu. O’u tu ane loa i luga ki le moli o le taimi nan a ou vaai ai ua o’u tei le vaai atu o taatia mai le panty ma le ofu vae pupuu o si a’u tama i autafa o le faamalū la e momoe ai laua. O’u tei o’u tago atu loa sei le ieafu ma ou vaaia ai ia laua la e telenoa uma laua oso mai lo’u toalua sulu mai lona ie ma una’i a’u ile isi pito o le moega lea na ou moe ai ae oso Dorl e tagi ma valaau mai fai mai “mom o fea lo’u ofuvae” o le taimi na ua toso atu a a’u e lo’u toalua ma ma o atu ai i fafo.

25. In cross examination the following evidence was given by the mother of the alleged victim;

Dc ile fale lea a outou, tagai ane ile ata 4 lea o le tusi ata, na e vaai iai ile pito i luga o le ata na 4 o na e iai moli e lua a moli foi ia uumi

Wit ia

Dc faafetai, ia na la ete vaai atu na e faasaga mai ii ile O lea a

Wit o lea lava

Dc e te iloa se tagata suafa ia Pati

Wit o lea lava

Dc sa tou nonofo a ea

Wit o lea lava

Dc sa moetolo ia Dorlene a ea

Wit o lea lava

Dc faalua lava na moetolo ia Dorlene a ea

Wit e faatasi ae leai se mea na faia iai

Dc lona uiga e faatasi na moetolo ai Pati ia Dorlene

Wit o lea lava

Dc ao i foi luga o le moega lea na maua ai le moetolo a Pati ia Dorlene

Wit e leo lea o le matou fale tuai sa iai

Dc na alu ese lea o Pati ile tausaga lea ua tea na tuli ese

Wit ua leva na alu ese Pati

Dc e te leo manatu le tausaga na alu ese ai Pati

Wit ole 2016 sa i o Pati o le 2017 na alu ese ai

Dc tusa la poo le 10 tausaga o Dorlene lea maua ai le moetolo a Pati

Wit leai o le 11 o ona tausaga

Dc o lea e fai mai lau faamatalga sa matamata lau fanau ile tv

Wit o lea lava

Dc e te le mailoa la poo le a le taimi na momoe ai le lua fanau pe o la sa feala lava ile taimi na sue ai lou ieafu, ete leo manatua

Wit oute le manatuaina le taimi na momoe ai na ou moe a o la e matamata le tv

Dc e te lei manatua foi se taimi na e ala a’e ai

Wit na ou manatuaina le taimi na ou te’i ifo ai

Dc na e vaai i se uati pe na tau matematae

Wit na ou vaai i lo’u uati lea e uati i lo’u lima

Dc e pau lava lena o le mea sa e vaai iai o lou vaai atu o la e taotooto mai luga o le moega faasaga mai agai ile O

Wit o lea lava

Dc ia faafetai lava.

26. The evidence of Doctor Tevaga who examined the alleged victim on 16 April 2019 ( alleged offending said to occur on 9 April 2019) is as follows;

Pros: Oa la vaega ia na maua mai I lau suesuega ile tino lea o Dorlene?

Wit: Na’o le pau le suesuega e taua ii oloo ou tusia lea ile parakarafa mulimuli ole’a ou faitauina pea e faapea “Examination of the genitalia showed normal female genitalia, there were no bruises, redness, swelling or discharge from the vagina. The hymen appeared torn all around”

Pros: Ile vaega mulimuli lea o lau ripoti lea, the hymen appeared torn all around, e mafai ona aumai sau faamatalaga e faapupula atili ai le uiga mulimuli lea o lau ripoti?

Wit: Ole hymen a tonu ole faasamoa ole upu lea ole aimeni e pei ole vaega lea ole totoga fanau ole tinā e pei ose afuafu pe ose membrane e tu tonu lava ile amataga poo le faitotoa ole ala fanau o le tinā. So normally e tatau ona pei e lamolemole pe smooth ia le li’o e iai ae a faapea e iai se tulaga e afaina ai ona iloa loa lea ua iai ni masaesae pei ona taua ile ripoti.

27. In cross examination the following evidence was given;

DC: Do you take samples for the purpose of DNA present in the panties, private part the vagina, do you do that as the matter of practice?

Wit: We don’t take samples for DNA especially for this lady. This young girl was seen by me about 7 days after the alleged incident occurred and the evidence is said that after 72 hours, the read of the early evidence is almost NIL in terms of, sometimes we take samples to look for sperm in the vagina fluid but at the time I saw her, it was already 7 days passed. Ele masani ona matou avea ni samples ole DNA aemaise peafai ua ova male 72 itula peafai faatoa oo atu le tagata e fai lana siaki, ole teineititi lea na ou vaaia pe ua 7 aso talu ona maea ia le faafitauli sa tupu but sometimes we do take samples pe afai o lae I totonu ole 72 itula e siaki ai le sua ole tamaitai mo sperm poo le suaola foi ole alii.

DC: Mea lea ole DNA, tusa ose molimau mauamutu lena I lou silafia poo se sua foi ose tane ua afain ai le itusa ole tamaitai?

Wit: Olea lava.

DC: Ae e leai se mea faapena I lau suesuega aea?

Wit: Leai.

DC: Okay, what about the police? Ete le’I saunoa I leoleo pe na iai se tulaga foi lea sei tulou lava, I ofuvae laititi ole teine lea o Dorlene na latou tuu I totonu ole tagapepa ma ave e test pe le’o iai se DNA ina ia sue ai pe leo iai le sua?

Wit: Leai lau Afioga, oute lei fesili ai. Oute le’i fesili i leoleo ile tulaga lea.

DC: Ona ooe ole doctor, oute manatu eleo toe iai se molinmau faasaienisi a lo’u uso a loia, la’u fesili atu pea faamolemole. Ole mea lea ole DNA i totonu ole sua ole alii, e mafai ona ola mose taimi umi lava, ele faatapula’a le taimi e ola ai, pea faapea lena e teu aea?

Wit: Ia, pe’a faapea e teu.

DC: Ia, oute tau maua atu i lau faamatalaga doctor, faapea e mafai ona test for DNA iinei?

Wit: Sorry ele mafai ona test mole DNA iinei i Samoa.

DC: Okay faafetai Doctor ua leai seisi a’u fesili.

28. The accused did not give or call evidence.

Discussion

29. At the outset I acknowledge that there are some key differences between acourt sitting as an appellate court and the trial judge who presided in the assessor trial. The trial judge had the same advantage as the assessors in terms of the assessment of honesty, credibility and reliability of witnesses. The trial judge is not relying on the written record as an appellate court would. While it is true that the weight to be given to individual pieces of evidence and finding the facts are assessor functions, the trial judge is not performing an appellate function of a case which only comes to him or her by written record. The trial judge sat through the case, and whilst leaving assessors to carry out their mandated functions, the trial Judge ultimately is the guardian of not only ensuring a fair trial for the accused but intervening where the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
30. The test to be applied (Attorney General v Sefo) is : that the trial judge must undertake the very process required by the assessors: to make a personal decision whether the charge has been proved and, if not, to acquit.
31. I am mindful of what the Court of Appeal said in Sefo; The test of ‘opinion’ ... is constrained by judicial not personal responsibility. It cannot be exercised by whim or caprice and must be grounded on evidence or its absence.
32. In Samuelu v Attorney General which was an appeal against an unreasonable verdict, the Court of Appeal stated the test is “a verdict is unreasonable only if, having regard to all the evidence, reasonable assessors could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty”. The Court of Appeal stated the same applies to the decision of the Judge not to interfere in the assessor verdict in the exercise of her power to do so under s 136(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016.
33. The New Zealand Supreme Court in Owens stated that “...there no need to depart from the language of Parliament. The question is whether the verdict is unreasonable. ...a verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the accused was guilty.
34. I will firstly assess the evidence in terms of the Samuelu test and then make a personal decision as per the Sefo decision, as to whether the charges have been proved. I do this because I am required to undertake the very process required of the assessors.
35. Because I am dealing with a not guilty verdict in this case, I find, having regard the evidence, in particular the evidence from cross examination of the alleged victim, the verdict is not unreasonable because reasonable assessors could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. Reasonable assessors ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and it was open to them to reject the alleged victim and her mother’s evidence about the alleged offending as they obviously did in this case. It was open also to them to infer from the evidence, especially the alleged victim’s evidence that she disliked her father and instead liked a man by the name of Mika as her father is cruel and Mika gives them money;

DC: Ete iloa pe na manao Mika e loka lou tamā ae faaauau fesootaiga ma lou tinā?

Wit: Leai, o Mika ose tagata e alofa iai matou, matou aiga. A leai se matou tupe, e sau Mika aumai le tupe e aai ai matou, a leai foi se tupe matou o ai ile aoga, e sau foi aumai.

DC: Meatonu a lena lea ua faiai au tuuaiga nei i lou tamā, ona ua suamalie tupe mai ia Mika, aea?

Wit: Leai.

DC: A na ua e faimai e alofa ia outou. Eleo mafuaaga ea lena lea ua tou faia ai nei tuuaiga faapea e faasaga ile tou tamā?

Wit: O Mika e alofa ia matou ona e sauā lo’u tamā, tago loa fai le mea leaga lea ia te a’u, alofa loa i lo’u tinā lae vaai atu lae tagi lo’u tinā ma share ai loa le mea lea na tupu ia Mika alu loa Mika vili leoleo lea ua mafua ai loa ona o’u sau.

AND:

DC: O tuuaiga nei ua e faia e faasaga i lou tamā ona ua e faapea ane o lou tamā e sauā ao Mika e lelei, tou fafaua loa tuuaiga leaga ile tou tamā, olea sau tali?

Wit: Ona ole matou tamā ele alofa ia matou lana fanau.

36. It was open to the assessors to infer from that a motive for falsely accusing her father. She had replied “yes” in relation to a question from Defence Counsel that what she said about her father was not right;

DC: Na e tago loa lea fai tala lē sa’o faimai na tuitui lou pi e lou tamā?

Wit: Ia.

DC: Na e tago foi fai le tala lea faapea na tuu le itutino sa o lou tamā i lou pi?

Wit: Ioe.

37. In relation to the mother’s evidence about the moe tolo of a person by the name of Pati to the alleged victim, it was open to the assessors to infer that the alleged victim had been sexually abused prior to the alleged offending. It was also open for them to infer that the torn hymen discovered by the doctor on his examination of the alleged victim a week after the alleged offending, was the result of the earlier abuse by the person Pati.
38. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the assessors’ verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. The assessors’ unanimous verdict means that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
39. After the above assessment of admissible evidence, I am of the opinion that the charges against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the alleged victim and her mother in cross examination, created doubt in my mind so that I could not find him guilty of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
40. Although my opinion is based primarily on the admissible evidence, I as trial judge had the same advantages as the assessors to consider the reliability and credibility of witnesses. That in this case the assessors returned a not guilty verdict, given the evidence, means that they assessed credibility and reliability of the Prosecution evidence and were not satisfied to the required standard to find the accused guilty. I concur with their assessment.
41. Nelson J said “setting aside the verdict is not an exercise to be undertaken lightly and is done only to prevent a miscarriage of justice”. The courts should not lightly interfere with a verdict of not guilty unless it is to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
42. Section 232 CPA(NZ) defines miscarriage of justice as “means any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that— (a) has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected; or (b) has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity”.
43. His Honour Justice Hammond stated in "The New Miscarriages of Justice" [2006] WkoLawRw 1; (2006) 14 Waikato Law Review 1;

Literally, a ‘miscarriage’ means a failure to reach the intended destination or goal, which in this case is ‘justice’. Justice in and of itself is about distributions, about according persons their fair shares, and like treatment. Thus, one argument runs, fair treatment and the dispensation of criminal justice in a liberal, democratic society means that all individuals should be treated with equal respect for their rights and for the rights of others.

What is much more likely to hold appeal in New Zealand, given our rather pragmatic approach to things, is a more instrumental approach. The question then is: What are we entitled to expect in New Zealand today with respect to a ‘satisfactory’ verdict? It seems to me that the answer to that question must be: factual accuracy in relation to the verdict; adherence to the rule of law; and moral authority in the verdict. If we have a verdict that reflects those things, then I think it can fairly be said to be a ‘legitimate’ or ‘satisfactory’ verdict.

44. For the sake of completeness, I am also not satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice requiring me to set aside the assessors’ verdict. There was no error, irregularity, substantial wrong or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity.

Result

45. For the foregoing reasons, the section 136(4)(b) CPA 2016 application by the Prosecution to order a retrial where the verdict is not guilty is denied.
46. The not guilty verdict handed down by the assessors in relation to the charges of rape and sexual connection with a young person by way of digital penetration remains and the accused is acquitted of both charges against him.

JUSTICE TAFAOIMALO LEILANI TUALA-WARREN