Police v Anelusi [2021] WSSC 63 (8 October 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Anelusi [2021] WSSC 63 (08 October 2021)

Case name:	Police v Anelusi
Citation:	[2021] WSSC 63
Decision date:	08 October 2021
Parties:	POLICE v ANELUSI ANELUSI, male of Vaitele-uta/Afega (Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Niavā Mata Keli Tuatagaloa
On appeal from:
Order:	The young defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows: • Grievous bodily harm – 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; • Armed with a dangerous weapon, a hammer used to inflict injuries – 8 months imprisonment; • Arson – 1 year and 1 month imprisonment; • Burglary (x2) – 2 years (each) imprisonment; • Theft (x2) – 6 months (each) imprisonment. The imprisonment terms are to be served concurrently. Less any time in custody.
Representation:	F. Vaasii for Prosecution D. Roma for the Defendant
Catchwords:	Sentencing for multiple offences – multiple victims – burglary – theft – grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon – arson – custodial sentence – recidivist offender – young offender – no apology – no reconciliation – early guilty plea
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, ss. 118; 161; 165(b); 174; 182(2)(b).
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

AND:

ANELUSI ANELUSI, male of Vaitele-uta/Afega

Defendant

Counsel: V. Faasii for Prosecution
D. Roma for the Defendant

Date: 08 October 2021

SENTENCE OF TUATAGALOA J

1. The defendant, Anelusi Anelusi appears for sentence on various offences committed on different dates involving multiple victims. The offences range from burglary (x2), theft (x2), grievous bodily harm using a hammer (armed with a dangerous weapon) and arson.
2. The imprisonment penalties for the various offences range from 14 years (arson)^[1],10 years (burglary/grievous bodily harm)^[2], 7 years maximum (theft)^[3] and 1 year (armed with a dangerous weapon)^[4].
3. The summary of facts prepared by the prosecution was read out and confirmed by the defendant which summary basically says the following:
   • (i) On 30 April 2021 the defendant entered a house at Vaitele-uta in the morning whilst the owners were said to have gone to take their son to school and stole a laptop and charger valued at $1,552.00;
   • (ii) On 04 June the defendant forcibly entered a house at Vaigaga through the sliding door while the owner was not at home and stole a tablet, a Bluetooth speaker and a bottle of Jim Beam. The total value of the stolen properties is $1,896.00;
   • (iii) On 5 June 2021 at around 4pm the defendant at Vaigaga stopped the victim’s taxi to take him to Tuana’i. When the taxi reached Tuana’i the victim who is the taxi driver turned around to ask for the taxi fare when the defendant struck at the victim’s head with a hammer. The defendant was aiming to strike at the victim the second time when the victim grabbed the hammer off the defendant, this caused the defendant to exit the taxi and ran off. The taxi driver sustained a deep laceration to his head and small fracture to his head;
   • (iv) On the same day (5 June 2021) the defendant is said to have gone to a home at Afega belonging to a Eterise Pologa while no one was home and intentionally started a fire which caused a lot of damage to the house.

Discussions

4. The defendant was 18 years’ old at the time of the various offending’s. He is said to have a number of outstanding matters in the Youth Court. It seems that this young offender’s offending is escalating and as such is of very high risk to society. According to the pre-sentence report, Anelusi’s bail condition to await for sentencing in the Youth Court was that he lives with his mother at Afega. However, his mother reported that Anelusi had left without her knowledge. Anelusi was apprehended while living with his father. He has an outstanding warrant of arrest against him from the Youth Court when he committed the offences that he is now to be sentenced.
5. Apart from April where the young defendant carried out one set of burglary and theft, the young defendant on the 04^th and 05^th June 2021 was on an offending spree. The most serious of these offending were the grievous bodily harm and arson which offending put people’s lives in great risk. Fortunately, for the arson offending there was no one home.
6. I am aware of the age of this young defendant. I am also made aware of his history in the Youth Court and how that Court has tried to give him various opportunities of rehabilitation but unfortunately to no avail as the young defendant continues to re-offend. His criminal behaviour from his current re-offending seems to be escalating. There is only so much the Court can do to try and have our young people rehabilitated to deter them from going down the pathway of crime, but if the family does not help out in the rehabilitation of their young person and by monitoring their movements then there is nothing anyone can do. We cannot continue to keep having the young offenders out in the community at the risk of people’s lives and safety.
7. I will adopt a totality approach in sentencing and due to the circumstances of each offending I will have the offence of grievous bodily harm as the most serious because of the use of a weapon and the part of the body aimed at and was injured being the victim’s head. Although under the law the offence of arson attracts a higher penalty of fourteen (14) years compared to the ten (10) years for causing grievous injuries, there was a real threat to the victim’s life in the grievous bodily injury offending than that of arson where there was no threat to any life as there was no one at home when it happened.
8. Prosecution provided the Court with previous sentencings on grievous bodily harm where a weapon was used and injuries sustained. A hammer was used by the young defendant in the offending and he swung at the victim twice with the first making contact with the back of the victim head. According to the victim impact report the victim was admitted for two days at the hospital. The young defendant’s behaviour is very concerning and shows lack of regard by the young defendant of ‘life’.
9. I would agree to the starting point of five (5) years recommended by Prosecution. There has been no apology or reconciliation by the young defendant or his family to the victim. The only mitigating factors are the young age of the defendant and his guilty plea. For his young age I will allow for two years’ deduction and then 25% less for his guilty plea (9 months). This leaves 27 months or 2 years and 3 months for the offence of grievous bodily harm. For armed with a dangerous weapon (a hammer) used to inflict the injuries the young defendant is sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.
10. For the offence of arson I will take 3 years as starting point and deduct 1 year for his young age, 6 months for the apology, and 25% (5 months) for his guilty plea. This, leaves 13 months or 1 year and 1 month imprisonment.
11. For the two counts of burglary and theft committed on 9 April and 4 June 2021 the young defendant carried out these offending during the day while no one was at home. The young defendant through counsel says that the properties were recovered except for the Jim Beam from the second burglary. For each offence of burglary, the young defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment with each theft charge the young defendant is sentenced to 6 months.

Sentence imposed

12. The young defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • Grievous bodily harm – 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment;
    • Armed with a dangerous weapon, a hammer used to inflict injuries – 8 months imprisonment;
    • Arson – 1 year and 1 month imprisonment;
    • Burglary (x2) – 2 years (each) imprisonment;
    • Theft (x2) – 6 months (each) imprisonment.

The imprisonment terms are to be served concurrently. Less any time in custody.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

---

^[1] Crimes Act 2013, s182(2)(b)
^[2] Crimes Act 2013, s174, s118(1)
^[3] Crimes Act 2013, ss161 & 165(b)
^[4] Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s25.