Police v Lolouta [2023] WSSC 67 (3 October 2023)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lolouta & Anor [2023] WSSC 67 (03 October 2023)

Case name:	Police v Lolouta
Citation:	[2023] WSSC 67
Decision date:	03 October 2023
Parties:	POLICE (Prosecution) AND PAUL LOLOUTA LOLOUTA male of Vailoa Faleata, Tulaele Satuiatua and Lotofaga (First Defendant) AND SHAWN SPARKY PETERS male of Vailoa Faleata and Leauvaa. (Second Defendant)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	Charging Document dated 21/08/23, 2023-02151SC/CR/UP
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	-
Representation:	E. Tiitii-Lam for prosecution Defendants unrepresented
Catchwords:	- Assault with intent to rob – robbery – theft -
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

PAUL LOLOUTA LOLOUTA male of Vailoa Faleata, Tulaele Satuiatua and Lotofaga.
First Defendant

AND:

SHAWN SPARKY PETERS male of Vailoa Faleata and Leauvaa.
Second Defendant

Counsel:
E. Tiitii-Lam for the prosecution
Defendants unrepresented
Sentence: 03 October 2023

S E N T E N C E

1. Defendants appear for sentence for robbery of a Chinese store at Lotopa on 26 July 2023. During which the first defendant physically assaulted the female cashier by strangling her, covering her mouth and holding her down.
2. According to the Police summary of facts which the defendants have both accepted, Paul also tried to get her to open the cash drawer of the shop till. This commotion attracted the attention of a nearby male shop employee who then approached the first defendant, causing him to run away closely followed by the second defendant who was in possession of two packets of Pall Mall valued at $30.00 and one small sprite valued at $4.00.
3. While the value of the goods stolen is small, the manner of the taking and the violence employed against a defenceless female is most disconcerting. And this kind of behaviour seems to be becoming more and more common in this country.
4. Defendants are cousins. Paul is 20 years old and Shawn 23 years old.
5. Paul is younger but he certainly was the more aggressive of the pair in this offending. Both defendants told the Probation Office they had been drinking beer and went to the shop to obtain more alcohol. Alcohol according to the documents I have read seems to be a weakness for both these young men.
6. The maximum penalty for the lead offence against the defendants of assault with intent to rob is 14 years imprisonment. For robbery it is a 10 year maximum and for theft of cigarettes and soft drink one (1) year. For assault a maximum also of one (1) year imprisonment. These are very serious charges gentlemen.
7. The courts response to this kind of offending needs to be firm and unequivocal. The message for all young men is you do this at your own peril. The court will not allow Samoa to become like other Pacific countries where this sort of behaviour is rampant. The need for strong deterrent sentences trumps all other considerations including rehabilitation.
8. In any event having viewed the defendants background it would seem rehabilitation has already been tried unsuccessfully. A stronger penalty is now required.
9. Considering all the circumstances in particular the fact that this was an attack on an unsuspecting defenceless female and having due regard to the degree of violence used. In fact the victim impact report says the following:

“Aafiaga o le tino: O le gaioiga sa faafuase’i ona ou aafia ai a’o ou faigaluega i le faleoloa sa osofa’i e le o loo molia nei lea sa faateia ai a’u ma e lei mafai ona toe fai se isi a’u gaioiga vave e taofi ai le malosi o le aualii sa faatinoina nei soligatulafono. Sa ou faalogoina le tiga o lou ua i le taimi sa faafuase’i ai ona kola a’u e oo i lou gutu lea sa oomi ma tapuni. Ae le gata I lea o lou taliga lea sa leua le vaega lea e iai lou tautaliga ma toto (bleed) ai ona o le televave o gaioiga sa faatino ina ua osofa’i a’u i lea aso. Sa ou taumafai e ee i luga ae sa malosi le oomi i lou gutu ma sa vave mai fafo lau pule ua maua ai le fesoasoani ma vave o ese ai le osofaiga lea sa faatino.”

10. Considering all those kinds of circumstances, the start point on the lead charge in respect of the first defendant will be a term of 6 years in prison. The first defendant is facing other charges but when he committed this offending he had no previous conviction i.e. his record was clean. He is therefore entitled to full credit for that plus his background as outlined in the pre-sentence report. I give him the usual deduction of 6 months for that.
11. The pre-sentence report indicates there has been no reconciliation or teuteuga of this mataupu. But the defendant is also entitled to a one (1) year deduction because of his relatively young age of 20 years at the time of the offending. Totals a deduction of one and a half (1½) years from 6 years. Leaves four and a half (4½) years balance.
12. Final deduction is for the defendants guilty plea which has saved the courts precious resources and also avoided the victim having to relive these events. For that I deduct one and a half (1½) years from his balance. Leaves three (3) years in prison.
13. On the lead offence of assault with intent to rob the first defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. Any remand in custody time awaiting sentence to be deducted.
14. On the second charge of robbery and using a similar process, convicted and sentenced to two (2) years in prison concurrent term.
15. On the offence of theft, convicted and sentenced to one (1) month imprisonment, concurrent term.
16. On the offence of assault, that is already covered by the lead offence, first defendant is discharged without conviction.
17. The second defendant Shawn played a lesser physical role in this robbery. But he still aided and abetted his partner the first defendant and it was the second defendant who stole the actual cigarettes and drink from the shop.
18. On the lead offence I give him the benefit of the doubt that he may not have been fully aware of the first defendants plan to assault and subdue the victim. He will be on that offence convicted and discharged without penalty.
19. But on the charge of robbery clearly he played an active role. A start point of two (2) years imprisonment would be appropriate for the part that he played. Shawn is not a first offender as he has a previous conviction for assault.
20. I note further that at the time of this offending he was 23 years old, was working and married with children. He is therefore not eligible for a deduction for his youth. But he is entitled to a twenty-five percent (25%) deduction for his guilty plea. I will deduct six (6) months from the start point, leaves eighteen (18) months balance.
21. I also have some sympathy for his wife and his young family and I will deduct a further six (6) months from his sentence because of them. That leaves a twelve (12) months balance.
22. On the charge of robbery, he will be convicted and sentenced to twelve (12) months imprisonment. Remand in custody time to be deducted.
23. On the charge of theft, as noted he was the defendant who actually took the items from the shop. Convicted and sentenced to three (3) months in prison, concurrent term.
24. In respect of the assault charge, he is also discharged without conviction.
25. In respect of the first defendant, he will be remanded until 05 October 2023 to deal with the other charges of burglary and theft against him set down before the Chief Justice in accordance with the file.
    

JUSTICE NELSON