Liu v Police [2025] WSSC 51 (25 June 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Liu v Police [2025] WSSC 51 (25 June 2025)

Case name:	Liu v Police
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 51
Decision date:	25 June 2025
Parties:	TAO LIU a.k.a LIU TAO (Applicant) v POLICE (Respondent)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Senior Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:	For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s application for bail is dismissed.
Representation:	S. Wulf for the Applicant T. Fesili for the Respondent
Catchwords:	Application for bail.
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 2016, ss. 99(a); 99(b); 99(d); 99(f); 99(g); 99(h); 99(j); 101(4)(b); 103.
Cases cited:	Lam v Police [2018] WSSC 11; Police v Reopoamo [2024] WSSC 136.
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

TAO LIU a.k.a LIU TAO

Applicant

AND:

P O L I C E

Respondent

Counsel: S. Wulf for the Applicant
T. Fesili for the Respondent

Date: 25 June 2025

BAIL RULING

1. The defendant faces a raft of charges many of which he has pleaded guilty to:

Charge	Details	Plea
Attempted Murder	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, attempted to murder a police officer acting in the course of his duty, namely Constable Pulemavae Tapuai, a male of Vaitele-Fou and Sagone Savaii, by discharging a firearm at the said police officer.	NG
Attempted Murder	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, attempted to murder a police officer acting in the course of his duty, namely Constable Asomua Loau, a male of Vaitele-Fou and Sagone Savaii, by discharging a firearm at the said police officer.	NG
Attempted Murder	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, attempted to murder a police officer acting in the course of his duty, namely Constable Henry Enosa, a male of Vaitele-Fou and Sagone Savaii, by discharging a firearm at the said police officer.	NG
Grievous Bodily Harm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, caused grievous bodily harm to Constable Pulemavae Tapuai, a male of Vaitele-Fou and Sagone Savaii.	NG
Armed with a Dangerous Weapon	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, was armed with a dangerous weapon namely a 22 automatic pistol, not being so armed for a lawful purpose.	G
Presenting a Loaded Firearm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, presented a loaded firearm to Constable Pulemavae Tapuai.	G
Presenting a Loaded Firearm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, presented a loaded firearm to Constable Henry Enosa.	G
Presenting a Loaded Firearm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, presented a loaded firearm to Constable Asomua Loau.	G
Possession of an Unlawful Firearm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, had in his possession an unlawful weapon namely a “22 pistol semi-automatic” not being authorised by the Minister of Police.	G
Possession of Unlawful Firearms	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, had in his possession an unlawful weapon namely a “22 rifle” without obtaining a lawful permit of possession, commits a breach of the Act.	G
Unregistered Firearm	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, had in his possession an unlawful firearm namely “22 rifle” without a valid certificate of registration.	G
Procured Ammunitions	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, procured possession of ammunitions namely eleven (11) live rounds of 22 calibre without permit.	G
Using Firearm against Law Enforcement Officers	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, used a firearm against a police officer, namely Constable Pulemavae Tapuai, knowing that, or being reckless whether or not, Constable Pulemavae Tapuai was a police officer acting in the execution of his duty.	NG
Using Firearm against Law Enforcement Officers	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, used a firearm against a police officer, namely Constable Asomua Loau knowing that, or being reckless whether or not, Constable Pulemavae Tapuai (should be Constable Asomua Loau) was a police officer acting in the execution of his duty.	NG
Using Firearm against Law Enforcement Officers	That at Siusega on 24th January 2025, used a firearm against a police officer, namely Constable Henry Enosa, knowing that, or being reckless whether or not, Constable Pulemavae Tapuai (should be Constable Henry Enosa) was a police officer acting in the execution of his duty.	NG

2. He now seeks bail awaiting sentence and trial on 25 August 2025.
3. The principles applicable to such an application are set out in Division 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016 as supplemented by many decisions of this Court for example Lam v Police [2018] WSSC 110 and more recently on bail pending sentence Police v Reopoamo [2024] WSSC 136.
4. No particular provisions are cited in counsels application other than the general assertion that the defendant is at minimum risk of flight or failing to appear and is unlikely to interfere with Prosecution witnesses or reoffend while on bail. His Constitutional presumption of innocence is also relied upon as is the necessity for unimpeded access to his counsel for trial preparation.
5. The defendant accepts in his affidavit in support that there are other matters pending against him in the Family Violence Court.
6. The factual context of the defendant’s application is summarised in the Prosecution’s amended submission dated 04^th April 2025:
   • “On 24 January 2025, police officers Constable Pulemavae Tapuai, Constable Asomua Loau, and Constable Henry Enosa (collectively referred to as the ‘the Police Officers’) responded to a report regarding a dispute between the Applicant and one of his employees at the Siusega Mart, located in the village of Siusega. The Applicant is the owner of the Siusega Mart (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Shop’).
   • Upon arriving at the scene, the officers observed that both the shop and the entrance gate were locked. They sounded the horn of their police vehicle before stepping out and approaching the shop’s gate on foot. At that point, the Applicant approached the officers.
   • The officers explained the reason for their presence. Constable Asomua Loau said in his statement dated 22 January 2025.
     • “...Ou fai atu loa ia Liu, ‘LIU TATALA MAI LE PA (GATE) LEA E O MAI LEOLEO I LE MATAUPU NA VALAAU ATU AI LE OFISA.”
   • Following this explanation, the Applicant laughed and said “WHAT CASE” and turned away and walked back toward the shop. The officers assumed that he was retrieving a key to open the gate.
   • However, instead of retrieving a key, the Applicant entered the shop, armed himself with a gun namely a .22 semi-automatic pistol, and returned outside. He then pointed the weapon at the police officers and opened fire. One of the bullets struck Constable Pulemavae Tapuai in the neck. According to the police officers, the defendant was standing approximately 2 metres to three metres when he shot at them.
   • After shooting at the police officers, the Applicant returned to the house and contacted his wife, asking her to come to the property. Upon her arrival, he allegedly used her as a hostage or human shield to deter the police from entering and arresting him.”
7. It further appears that it took some time before the Police were able to safely negotiate the release of the defendant’s wife and secure the defendant’s arrest. The matter required the intervention of 3^rd parties as requested by the defendant.
8. This factual account has not been challenged by the defendant. The defendant has now pleaded guilty to the firearms charges including presentation and possession of an unlawful weapon which carries a maximum penalty of up to 5 years’ imprisonment.
9. Court records show the defendant has two matters pending in the Family Violence Court, a domestic violence sentencing for offending against his wife and a matter for hearing. The defendant failed to appear for those matters on 10 November 2021, 11 April 2022 and 17 September 2024 leading to the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and an order that upon arrest, he be remanded in custody.
10. The defendant’s application for bail must be denied for the following reasons:
    • (i) He has failed to appear on x3 occasions for matters in the District Court. The current charges in the Supreme Court are more serious, thus making him more of a flight risk;^[1]
    • (ii) One of the key Prosecution witnesses against him in the District Court and in the current matter is his wife. Her inability not to respond to him and his use of her as a hostage magnifies the risk that he may interfere with her and thereby the Prosecution’s case. It is apparent that previously the parties lived above their Siusega shop which the defendant’s wife and daughter currently occupy^[2]. The defendant has no other place of residence.
    • (iii) When the defendant was initially released on bail in 2021, it was an express condition that he not reoffend pending disposition of his matter. This condition he has now breached;^[3]
    • (iv) Ongoing non-compliance with the judicial process speaks to a lack of respect for the authorities and the rules of the society he is living within;^[4]
    • (v) No question that the Supreme Court charges the defendant currently faces are “serious” and “grave”;^[5]
    • (vi) It is equally beyond doubt that if convicted the defendant would be liable to severe penalties. Imprisonment is almost a certainty for shooting at and wounding a police officer executing his duties^[6]. As noted in Reopoamo:
      • “The judge must not only address whether there is a real or substantial possibility of imprisonment but also form a view as to how likely it is that such a sentence will be imposed. The more likely (or probable) a sentence of imprisonment, the more likely it is that bail will be refused.”^[7]
    • (vii) Even on the charges the defendant has pleaded guilty to the defendant faces up to 5 years in prison^[8];
    • (viii) I am also very concerned about the safety and protection of the victim wife from a defendant released on bail^[9];
    • (ix) There is no evidence the defendant is restricted from or is otherwise unable to access his legal counsel.
11. When hearing submissions, I expressed some concern at the circumstances of the defendant’s custodial remand and whether, given that he is a foreigner, he is safe and is being adequately cared for. I have now received affidavit confirmation from the Commissioner of Prisons:
    • “THAT the defendant, Liu Tao is currently detained at the Tanumalala Correctional Facility located at Tanumalala.
    • THAT upon verification and confirmation from our internal records, I confirm that the defendant, Liu Tao, is housed in a shared cell with other inmates, and has been so since his remand and transfer to Tanumalala facility on 30 January 2025.
    • THAT since the defendant, Liu Tao, has been in custody, there have been no reported incidents, threats or concerns raised regarding his safety or well-being while being held in a shared cell.
    • THAT correctional officers conduct routine and scheduled inspections throughout each day to ensure the safety and security of all inmates, including the defendant, Liu Tao.
    • THAT in accordance with the internal regulations of the Correctional Services, all inmates, including the defendant, Liu Tao, are granted the opportunity for two (2) visitations from family or legal counsel per calendar month.
    • THAT I guarantee and confirm that as of today’s date, the defendant Liu Tao remains safely accommodated within the facility and has experienced no disturbances or endangerment while in custody.”^[10]
12. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s application for bail is dismissed.
    

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON

---

^[1] refer: Criminal Procedure Act 2016, s. 99(a).
^[2] ibid., s. 99(b).
^[3] ibid., s. 99(d) & 99(g).
^[4] ibid., s. 99(f).
^[5] ibid. s. 99(h).
^[6] ibid., s. 99(j).
^[7] Police v Reopoamo [2024] WSSC 136 at para 6.
^[8] ibid., s. 103.
^[9] Criminal Procedure Act 2016, s. 101(4)(b).
^[10] Sworn affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Leiataua Samuelu Afamasaga dated 11/04/25.