PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2023 >> [2023] WSSC 87

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

Police v Muta [2023] WSSC 87 (27 October 2023)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Muta [2023] WSSC 87 (27 October 2023)


Case name:
Police v Muta


Citation:


Decision date:
27 October 2023


Parties:
POLICE (Prosecution) v IOSUA MUTA, male of Malie (Defendant)


Hearing date(s):
02 October 2023


File number(s):



Jurisdiction:
CRIMINAL


Place of delivery:
Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Justice Niavā Mata Tuatagaloa


On appeal from:



Order:
The Court finds that prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant, Iosua Muta was armed with a machete with intent to cause grievous bodily harm did cause grievous bodily harm to Kaisa Niulevaea.

The Court finds the defendant, Iosua Muta, guilty of the charges of grievous bodily harm pursuant to section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013 and being armed with a dangerous weapon not for a lawful purpose pursuant to section 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961.


Representation:
DJ Fong for Prosecution
S Ainuu for the Accused


Catchwords:
Causing grievous bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon.


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:


IOSUA MUTA, male of Malie


Defendant


Counsel: DJ Fong for Prosecution
S Ainuu for the Defendant


Hearing: 02 October 2023
Decision: 27 October 2023


JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

This is the reserved decision of the Court.

The Charges

  1. The defendant is charged that at Faleula on 30th July 2022:

The Law

  1. The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. For the offence of grievous bodily harm, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
  2. For the purpose of section 118(1) the Defendant must with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to another person, wounds, maims, disfigures or causes grievous bodily harm to that other person.
  3. In terms of the armed with a dangerous weapon charge, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

The Evidence

  1. The Defendant elected not to give evidence nor call any witnesses.
  2. The only evidence before the Court was that of the Prosecution. Prosecution called six (6) witnesses:
  3. The Police officers who gave evidence were from Forensics and their evidence was to the photos they took as follows:
  4. Dr Pa’i Enosa[7] was the doctor on duty when the victim was brought to the hospital in the early hours of 30th July 2022. Dr Enosa confirmed to the Court when shown the photos that they were of the victim’s injury that he treated. He said that the length of the wound and the character of the wound required 8-10 or more stitches. Dr Enosa said the injury was caused by a sharp object such as a machete, a small knife or a broken glass. The injury he said was 10-12 cm in length and 3-5 cm in depth. He rated the injury to be of moderate to severe and said that if the wound were any deeper it would have proven fatal for the victim.
  5. The only evidence as to what happened and identified the defendant, Iosua Muta, as the offender were Kaisa Niulevaea (victim) and witness, Taina Faalifu as follows:

Discussion

  1. The evidence is very clear that there were five people drinking on the night prior to the incident: Kaisa (victim), Taina (witness), Eseta, Iosua (defendant) and another man referred to in the evidence as, “le isi taule’ale’a”. This other man according to the evidence of Kaisa and Taina left their drinking session before Kaisa and Iosua had a fight. The evidence also is that this taule’ale’a was never seen again after he left. There was no other evidence before the Court to doubt the evidence of Kaisa and Taina. This means that the only people that were present when the offending took place were Taina, Kaisa, Eseta (who did not give evidence and from the evidence is most likely a relative of the defendant), and Iosua.
  2. Mr Ainu’u, counsel for the defendant’s line of questioning tried to create doubt as to the identity of the person who slashed and wounded Kaisa on the back by raising that Kaisa and Taina had never seen or met Iosua prior to that night; Kaisa and Taina were drunk therefore their vision may have been impaired; that Kaisa being drunk and only had one good eye therefore could not have seen the person who slashed at him with clarity; Taina could not have properly seen the person approaching with the machete because it was dark and that Iosua could not have done what he is defendant of as he was too drunk. For the latter, Mr Ainuu should know better that intoxication is not a defence under the law.
  3. As for the rest of what was raised by Mr Ainuu, the evidence of both Kaisa and Taina were both reliable. They were both consistent throughout their evidence despite Mr Ainuu’s cross examination as to identity. Taina maintained that he clearly saw the defendant who left to go home and came back with a machete and caused the injury to Kaisa’s back, who did not leave or run off after having caused injury but instead chased after Kaisa around a parked vehicle (tuli faatamilo i le taavale ma Kaisa); the same defendant he (and Kaisa) observed, ‘Olo le sapelu i luga o le mutia,’ before walking off to go home.
  4. Kaisa first met the defendant earlier on in the evening at his friend Eseta’s house before they started drinking. He spoke with Iosua when he gave him the money to buy them a box of beer; and later on he (Kaisa) and others sat drinking with Iosua whom he fought with prior to the offending. At the shop when he was warned by Taina of the machete, he looked up and saw Iosua come at him and attack him with the machete before he managed to get up and run and Iosua chased after him with the machete around a parked vehicle.
  5. It can be said that both Kaisa and Taina prior to the offending had ample opportunity to familiarise themselves with what the defendant looked like to be able to identify that it was the defendant who had caused injury to Kaisa with a machete. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who caused injury to Kaisa on his back. Furthermore, the use of the machete to have caused the injury was never challenged.
  6. For the avoidance of doubt as to identity, even if I find that Kaisa’s vision may have been impaired that night due to being under the influence and having one good eye, the evidence of Taina was solid, well measured and unwavering that I would accept his evidence as to the identity of the defendant.

Conclusion

  1. The Court finds that prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant, Iosua Muta was armed with a machete with intent to cause grievous bodily harm did cause grievous bodily harm to Kaisa Niulevaea.
  2. The Court finds the defendant, Iosua Muta, guilty of the charges of grievous bodily harm pursuant to section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013 and being armed with a dangerous weapon not for a lawful purpose pursuant to section 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961.

JUSTICE NIAVA MATA TUATAGALOA


[1] Crimes Act 2013, s.118(1).
[2] Police Offences Ordinance 1961, s.25.
[3] Exhibit P3 – Medical Report dated 24 April 2023
[4] Exhibit P1- Victim’s Injury.
[5] Exhibit P2 – machete taken on 4th May 2023.
[6] Exhibit P4 – crime scene taken on 2nd May 2023.
[7] Exhibit P3 – Medical Report dated 24th April 2023; Transcript, pp 4-8.
[8] Transcript, p.12.
[9] ibid.
[10] ibid., p.13.
[11] ibid.
[12] ibid., p.23.
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid., pp.23 & 27.
[15] ibid., p.24.
[16] ibid., pp.24 & 29.
[17] ibid., p.24.


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2023/87.html