PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2024 >> [2024] WSSC 52

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

Police v Vui [2024] WSSC 52 (2 July 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Vui [2024] WSSC 52 (02 July 2024)


Case name:
Police v Vui


Citation:


Decision date:
02 July 2024


Parties:
POLICE (Informant) v TAVETE VUI a.k.a. TAVETE LAUANO SALELEA male of Puapua, Sapapalii and Falemauga (Defendant)


Hearing date(s):



File number(s):
Charge 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 per charging document dated 13 November 2023.


Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court – CRIMINAL


Place of delivery:
Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Justice Fepulea’i A. Roma


On appeal from:



Order:
I grant the application. All charges are withdrawn and dismissed. You are also free to go.


Representation:
I. Atoa for Prosecution
I. Sapolu for the Accused.


Catchwords:
Incest – sexual violation – unlawful sexual connection – attempted indecent assault.


Words and phrases:
“Application to withdraw charges” – “victims recanted complaints and statements”.


Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 ss. 39(b); 49(3); 50(b); 52(2); 55; 60.


Cases cited:



Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU


BETWEEN:


P O L I C E


Informant


AND:


TAVETE VUI a.k.a. TAVETE LAUANO SALELEA male of Puapua, Sapapalii and Falemauga.


Defendant


Counsel: I. Atoa for Prosecution

I.Sapolu for the Accused

Sentence: 2 July 2024


RULING
(Application to withdraw charges)

  1. On the 13th November 2023 through former counsel Mr Chan Chui, you pleaded not guilty to 9 charges – 4 charges of unlawful sexual violation, 4 of incest and one of attempted indecent assault.
  2. The victim of the unlawful sexual violation and incest charges is Olalupefueselela Tavete, your 15 year old biological daughter. The victim of the one attempted indecent assault charge is your other daughter Apaula Tavete who is now 34 years of age according to her statement before me.
  3. After Mr Chan Chui withdrew as counsel, you maintained your denial of all charges through your present counsel Ms Sapolu and the matter was set for hearing today.
  4. Because of the risk of you interfering with prosecution witnesses who are your close relatives, and in particular your conviction for Incest in 2008, prosecution opposed a bail application filed by your former counsel which you did not pursue through Ms Sapolu. Instead, you sought the earliest available hearing date and have therefore remained in custody since the 25th October 2023.
  5. This morning in a memorandum by prosecution, they seek to withdraw all charges. The basis of the application is that the two victims have recanted their complaints and statements of February and March 2023 from which police laid the charges.
  6. I have read the new statements by both victims. I am not at all convinced of the reason they claim as why they lied to police and implicated you as the offender. There is obviously more behind a simple retraction of detailed complaints filed with police almost a year ago. The question is, why have they left it this late to recant police statements alleging serious sexual offending against their father and withdraw the charges, knowing full well that as a result, you have been held in custody since October 2023.
  7. Despite my very strong suspicions as to the real reason behind the change in the victims’ story and consequent application by prosecution, I consider as prosecution has informed the court, that the prospects of securing a conviction have been significantly affected.
  8. I have said earlier that this would be one of about five recent cases of serious sexual offending where prosecution have sought to withdraw all charges on the basis of complainants recanting their complaints to police. I find that highly suspicious and cause for serious concern that police and prosecution through the Attorney General’s Office must properly investigate and address.
  9. I note the advice by prosecution that the two victims have been referred to police to be charged.
  10. Coming back to the application, these proceedings have been a complete waste of resources and the court’s time for the reason and manner they have been determined.
  11. I grant the application. All charges are withdrawn and dismissed. You are also free to go.

JUSTICE ROMA


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2024/52.html