Police v Faresa [2025] WSSC 111 (11 December 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Faresa Faresa [2025] WSSC 111 (11 December 2025)

Case name:	Police v Faresa Faresa
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 111
Decision date:	11 December 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v FARESA FARESA male of Vaiusu and Taga. (Accused)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Loau Donald A. Kerslake
On appeal from:
Order:	Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced for the remaining charges in the Charging Document dated 18 July 2025 as follows: (i) For the charge of causing serious bodily injury or grievous bodily harm with intent you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment less any time already spent in custody; and (ii) For the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon you are also convicted and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the grievous bodily harm charge above. Your total end sentence is therefore 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
Representation:	Mr. S. Natia for Prosecution Accused appears in Person
Catchwords:	Causing Serious Bodily Harm - guilty plea
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 Family Safety Act 2013
Cases cited:	R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174; [2005] 3 NZLR 372 Tele’a v National Prosecution Office [2017] WSCA 4 Police v Telea [2020] WSSC 100 Police v Aigalii [2015] WSSC 13 Police v Osooso [2017] WSSC 3 Police v Muta [2023] WSSC 88 (20 December 2023) Police v Talosaga [2025] WSSC 78 (12 September 2025) Police v Malaesala [2022] WSSC 71 (17 October 2022) Police v Ianuari [2025] WSSC 54 (4 July 2025).
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FARESA FARESA male of Vaiusu and Taga

Accused

Counsels: Ms. S. Natia for Prosecution
Accused appears in Person

Sentence: 11 December 2025

SENTENCE

The Charges

1. Faresa you appear for sentence for:
   • (i) one charge that with intent, you caused serious bodily injury or grievous bodily harm to Junior Faitala Manase contrary to section 118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013; and
   • (ii) one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon namely a knife not being armed for a lawful purpose contrary to section 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961.

The Offending

2. According to the summary of facts dated 23 July 2025 accepted by you, on Tuesday, 3 June 2025 between 9-10pm after work you armed yourself with a knife, went to the victim’s house, and saw him eating with his family. You entered the victim’s house and stabbed him in the left side of his abdomen (stomach) injuring him. According to the medical report, the victim suffered an incising wound 5x5cm deep to the stomach which did not affect any of his organs.
3. Your actions were prompted by a statement the victim made over the phone to a co-worker earlier that day. You overheard him threaten to assault his supervisor if he was not allowed back to work, and you later clarified that in the same phone conversation he also threatened to harm you. This angered you. After finishing work, you consumed alcohol both at work and again at home. Subsequently, you armed yourself with a knife and went to the victim’s residence.

The Background of the Accused

4. Faresa, you are a 36-year-old male from Vaiusu and Taga, currently residing in Vaiusu. According to the pre-sentence report, you serve as the primary breadwinner for your family, employed at the Ah Liki Wholesale branch in Taufusi. Your income supports your de facto partner and four children, the eldest being 11 years old and the youngest a four-month old infant.
5. Family members, together with your church pastor, have provided positive testimonies emphasizing your dedication, strong work ethic, and supportive nature in all aspects of life. However, your brother-in-law has acknowledged that alcohol remains a personal challenge, contributing to sudden changes in your mood.

The Victim

6. The victim is a 21-year-old male from the village of Vaiusu and Sili, Savaii. He is married to the accused’s niece. At the time of the offending he was living with his wife’s family at Vaiusu on the same family land as the accused.

Aggravating Features of the Offending

7. The following are the aggravating features of your offending:
   • (i) Premeditation. The cause of your actions stemmed from an earlier telephone conversation that you overheard, which provoked your anger. You had sufficient time to reflect and plan your response. You deliberately sought out a knife and proceeded to the victim’s residence, where you carried out the offence.

(ii) Domestic Relationship. The offence occurred within a domestic relationship as defined under section 2 of the Family Safety Act 2013 as the victim is married to your niece. This constitutes an aggravating factor pursuant to section 17 of the same Act. It is, however, important to note that the matter does not involve intimate partner violence.
(iii) The involvement of alcohol. The consumption of alcohol intensified your anger and contributed to the circumstances leading to the stabbing. You informed the Salvation Army that you experienced a “blackout” while drinking that night, indicating the significant quantity of alcohol consumed.
(iv) Use of a small knife as a weapon to carry out the offending.
(v) The injury suffered by the victim.

8. There are no mitigating features in respect of your offending.

Aggravating Features in respect of the Offender

9. There are no aggravating factors in respect of you personally.

Mitigating Factors in respect of the Offender

10. I take into account the following mitigating factors personal to you:
    • (i) Your previous good character. You are a first offender with no prior encounters with the law. You have been a law-abiding citizen, and the character references submitted on your behalf reflect positively on you. Your employer describes you as mature, reliable, punctual, and respectful of workplace policies and protocols.
    • (ii) You have undertaken and successfully completed the alcohol and drugs treatment programme with the Salvation Army. You have acknowledged your difficulties with alcohol, and the programme clinician has provided a positive assessment of your progress.
    • (iii) Reconciliation. You have apologised to and reconciled with the victim, as confirmed in the victim impact report. The victim has forgiven you and informed probation services that you are once again living together on the same family land. You also apologised to the Court, and I accept that your apology is genuine and demonstrates remorse.
    • (iv) Early guilty plea. Your early guilty plea has spared the Court and prosecution the time and expense of calling and hearing evidence against you.
11. I am not satisfied that provocation applies as a mitigating factor. The nature and timing of the victim’s statement which caused your anger is too remote from the circumstances of your offending.

Discussion

12. Faresa, your personal circumstances have been noted, including your request for leniency given the ages of your young children and the need for you to provide financial support. However, the act of stabbing and injuring another person is a grave matter. It is a dangerous and serious offence that cannot and should not be taken lightly.
13. Probation services have recommended a non-custodial sentence with a lengthy period of supervision. The prosecution, however, has sought a custodial sentence with a starting point of 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment. The Court must balance deterrence with rehabilitation. Sentencing serves not only to punish and rehabilitate but also to send a clear message discouraging others from committing similar acts.
14. In determining the appropriate sentence for grievous bodily harm, the observations of former Chief Justice Sapolu in Police v Leifi [2005] WSSC 25 remain relevant. His Honour noted that the circumstances of such cases vary widely, making it impossible to prescribe a fixed tariff. Sentences must be tailored to the facts of each case, though it is clear that this offence ordinarily attracts imprisonment.
15. Sentencing for grievous bodily harm cases is guided by the sentencing bands established in R v Taueki [2005] NZCA 174; [2005] 3 NZLR 372, as applied in Tele’a v National Prosecution Office [2017] WSCA 4 which is now the leading authority in Samoa. The three-band approach is subject to adjustment to reflect Samoa’s maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment for this offence.
16. In Tele’a v NPO, the Court of Appeal held that attacks involving machetes generally attract a starting point of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. In a separate case Police v Telea [2020] WSSC 100, Justice Nelson emphasized that attacks with small knives should be treated similarly to machete attacks:

“Although the present case involved a small knife rather than a machete, the weapon was equally capable of causing fatal injury. The depth of the wounds indicates considerable force was used.”^[1]

17. I note that there have been cases where non-custodial sentences were imposed, such as Police v Aigalii [2015] WSSC 13 and Police v Osooso [2017] WSSC 3, both involving small knives. However, as Justice Nelson stated in Police v Telea, those cases are “out of step with Tele’a (2017) and are cases decided on their own particular and unique facts.”^[2] He further observed that “the use of a weapon almost guarantees a defendant prison time.”^[3]
18. The stating point in Police v Telea was 4 years’ imprisonment with an end sentence of 3 years. Other cases have followed. In Police v Muta [2023] WSSC 88 (20 December 2023) a decision by Justice Tuatagaloa where a machete was used, the starting point was 4 years with an end sentence of 3 years. In Police v Talosaga [2025] WSSC 78 (12 September 2025) also by Justice Tuatagaloa and involving a machete, the starting point was 5 years while the end sentence was 2 years and 7 months. In Police v Malaesala [2022] WSSC 71 (17 October 2022) a decision by Justice Tuala-Warren, the starting point was 3 years with an end sentence of 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment. The offending involved a machete but provocation played a factor in the reduced sentence. In the more recent decision of Police v Ianuari [2025] WSSC 54 (4 July 2025) by Justice Clarke, the starting point was 3 years’ imprisonment with an end sentence of 1 year and 7 months’ imprisonment. The weapon used was a retractable knife or box cutter. These cases demonstrate that final outcomes are determined by the unique circumstances of each offence and the personal circumstances of each defendant.
19. It is becoming increasingly common for family members in domestic relationships to resort to violence rather than resolving disputes through dialogue and reason. Alcohol is too often used as a catalyst or excuse for releasing suppressed anger. I have considered probation’s recommendation for a non-custodial sentence, but in light of the authorities following Tele’a v NPO, a custodial sentence cannot be avoided.
20. As the offence occurred within a domestic relationship, section 17 of the Family Safety Act 2013 must also be considered in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors. Applying Taueki as adopted in Tele’a v NPO, your offending falls within band 1, which suggests a starting point of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment. Given the involvement of a weapon (a small knife), a starting point of 4 years is appropriate.
21. For the grievous bodily harm charge, I adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment. I deduct 6 months for your genuine remorse, the apology and reconciliation which has taken place. I deduct a further 6 months for your previous good character. I deduct a further 8 months for your efforts to address alcohol misuse through counselling and the successful completion of the Salvation Army programme. This leaves a balance of 2 years and 4 months. Finally, I deduct 8 months for your guilty plea which arrives to an end sentence of 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Result

22. Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced for the remaining charges in the Charging Document dated 18 July 2025 as follows:
    • For the charge of causing serious bodily injury or grievous bodily harm with intent you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment less any time already spent in custody; and
    • For the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon you are also convicted and sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent to the grievous bodily harm charge above.
23. Your total end sentence is therefore 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
    

JUSTICE KERSLAKE

---

^[1] Police v Tele’a [2020] WSSC 100, para 14.
^[2] ibid, para15.
^[3] ibid, para 13.