PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2021 >> [2021] WSSC 66

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Police v Toma [2021] WSSC 66 (21 April 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Toma [2021] WSSC 66 (21 April 2021)


Case name:
Police v Toma


Citation:


Decision date:
21 April 2021


Parties:
POLICE v FUIMAONO FAAUILA TANIELU TOMA, male of Salani Falealili


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 defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:

(i) Rape – 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment;
(ii) Sexual connection with a girl under 16 years’ old (x5) – 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
The sentences are to be served concurrently. This means the defendant is to serve 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.


Representation:
V. Faasii for Prosecution
T. Atoa for the Defendant


Catchwords:
Rape – sexual connection with a minor (under 16 years) – occurred multiple times – victim fell pregnant – 48 year age disparity – vulnerability of victim – offending pre-meditated – breach of trust – sentencing bands – early guilty plea – traditional apology carried out – village fine imposed & paid by defendant – custodial sentence.


Words and phrases:



Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013, ss. 52(1) & 58(1).


Cases cited:



Summary of decision:

NOTE: THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ORDER SUPPRESSING OR PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF THE VICTIM AND ANY DETAILS THAT MAY IDENTIFY HER


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA


HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN:


P O L I C E


Prosecution


AND:


FUIMAONO FAAUILA TANIELU TOMA, male of Salani Falealili


Defendant


Counsel: V. Faasii for Prosecution
T. Atoa for the Defendant


Date: 21 April 2021


S E N T E N C E

  1. The defendant who is 62 years’ old appears for sentence charged with one count of rape and five counts of having sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years of age.
  2. The summary of facts and the victim impact report give slightly different accounts of what took place. In the summary of facts, on six occasions the defendant had sexual intercourse with the young victim at a bush area at Satalo village (neighbouring village) on occasions when he asked the victim’s adoptive parents for the victim to accompany him to the shop to buy food or when he picked her up from school.
  3. The defendant is a good friend of the victim’s parents and seemed to be a regular visitor to the victim’s home. A major concern of the Court is the fact that the defendant who is 62 years’ old, a close friend of the victim’s parents, and a regular visitor to the victim’s house would no doubt have known the victim is very young; yet knowing the actions he was carrying out is unlawful and not morally acceptable, this did not deter the defendant from having sexual intercourse with the young victim.
  4. The first time it happened the victim was only 14 years’ old and it occurred multiple times resulting in the victim falling pregnant at the age of 15. The defendant in the pre-sentence report does not deny having a sexual relationship with the young victim but says that the young victim consented. Under the laws of our country it is illegal to have sexual connection with any girl under 16 years’ of age regardless if the victim consented. The Court does not accept that the young victim consented to any of the sexual liaisons that took place between her and the defendant.
  5. The defendant’s behaviour is very predatorial. It seems both parents were naïve in the circumstances of this case allowing the defendant to take the daughter anytime he requested reflecting on the trust they had in him. Unfortunately for the daughter, she was exploited at the hands of a close family friend.
  6. The defendant is a very dangerous person in society especially where young girls are concerned. From the pre-sentence report, the defendant was on parole when he committed the offending. The appropriate sentence is a custodial sentence.
  7. The Prosecution highlights the following aggravating factors of this offending:
  8. I do not agree that the giving of money by the defendant to the victim after every sexual encounter is child grooming. The money was intended to hush the young victim.
  9. The Prosecution recommends a starting point of 24 years’ imprisonment for the offence of rape and six years starting point for each offence of sexual connection with a girl under 16 years’ old.
  10. Counsel for the defendant accepts that the offending would attract a custodial sentence and seeks a starting point at the lower end of Band 2 of nine years.
  11. Counsel for the defendant also submitted mitigating factors to which I only find the following in mitigation:
  12. There is the defendant who is much older and much more cunning in his ways in order to have access to the young victim. There are the young victim’s parents who are naïve and never thought their much older and close friend (defendant) would do what he did to their young daughter.
  13. There may have been low level of violence in the circumstances of this case; the defendant was much older and stronger than the young victim. Any resistance from her would be easily overpowered by the defendant.
  14. What is of more concern is that the defendant was trusted by the victim and her family, who had access to the victim’s home through close friendship with her parents yet had very sinister motives and preyed upon the young victim.
  15. The offence of rape is life imprisonment.[1] The appropriate starting point for the offence of rape is 18 years; less 18 months (1 ½ years) for mitigating factors and 25% for early guilty plea off 50 months (4 years and 2 months). This leaves 148 months or 12 years and 4 months.
  16. Sexual connection with a young girl under 16 years of age attracts the maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.[2] I agree as appropriate the starting point of 6 years’ recommended by the Prosecution for each count. I deduct 18 months for the mitigating factors and 25% discount for early guilty plea of 14 months. This leaves 40 months or 3 years and 4 months.

Conclusion

  1. The defendant is convicted and sentenced as follows:
  2. The sentences are to be served concurrently. This means the defendant is to serve 12 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA


[1] Crimes Act 2013 s. 52(1).
[2] Crimes Act 2013 s. 58(1).


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2021/66.html