Police v ST [2025] WSSC 67 (2 July 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v S.T [2025] WSSC 67 (2 July 2025)

Case name:	Police v S.T
Citation:	[2025] WSSC 67
Decision date:	2 July 2025
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) v S.T (Accused)
Hearing date(s):	Sentencing submissions: 27th June 2025
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL
Place of delivery:	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke
On appeal from:
Order:	Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced as follows, less remand in custody: (a) charge 1 of sexual connection with a child under 12 in charging document dated 7th May 2025, 6 years imprisonment on a totality basis; and (b) all remaining charges, 3 years each charge to be served concurrently to charge 1.
Representation:	F. Ioane for Prosecution M. Tuimalealiifano for Accused
Catchwords:	Sexual connection – pre-meditation – age disparity – vulnerability of victim -
Words and phrases:	“victim under 12 years of age” – “occurred multiple times” – “victim is defendant’s step-daughter” – “gross breach of trust”.
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s. 58(1); Family Safety Act 2013, s. 17.
Cases cited:	Attorney General v Lua [2016] WSCA 1; Police v JP [2021] WSSC 62; Police v Siaosi [2023] WSSC 69; Police v SL [2024] WSSC 85; R v AM [2010] NZCA 114; [2010] 2 NZLR 750.
Summary of decision:

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION IN NEWS MEDIA, INTERNET OR ANY OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE THE NAMES OR VILLAGE DETAILS OF THE ACCUSED AND VICTIM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

S.T

Accused

Counsel: F. Ioane for Prosecution
M. Tuimalealiifano for Accused

Sentence Submissions: 27^th June 2025
Sentence: 2^nd July 2025

SENTENCE

1. S.T, you appear for sentence on five charges of sexual connection with a child under 12 contrary to section 58(1) of the Crimes Act 2013. The maximum penalty for sexual connection with a child under 12 is life imprisonment.
2. You entered guilty plea to the charges on the second hearing date.

The Offending:

3. According to the Summary of Facts accepted by you through counsel, on five separate occasions between 30^th November 2022 and 13^th February 2024, you would approach your step-daughter as she slept. When the offending began as early as November 2022, your step-daughter was just 9 years of age. You would remove her shorts and undergarments. You would then lick her vagina. You would do this to the victim when you got into an argument with her mother, your wife.
4. Your offending only came to light when your wife’s sister saw you approach the victim in her sleep and she told your wife. When confronted as to why you went to the victim, you lied and replied that you were going to cover her with the bed sheet. The victim later told her grandparents that you had been licking her vagina. Next confronted by your wife, you then got on to your knees, apologized and admitted to her what you had been doing.

The Accused:

5. You are 37 years old from [x-village & y-village]. You completed school to year 12. You have worked at [**company] and a [* shop] in American Samoa as well as on an inter-island vessel. Most recently, you have worked as a driver for [* company].
6. You have two children from an earlier relationship. With the victim’s mother, you share one child who is a baby. You have no prior convictions. You have a reference from the Assembly of God which says very little about your character, good or bad. I have also read a letter from your mother seeking leniency in sentencing.

The Victim:

7. The victim was your step-daughter. In her statement to police, she says she was born on 17^th June 2013. When your sexual assault of the victim began as early as November 2022, she would have been as young as 9 years old. In her VIR, she says that your offending impacted her schooling, she losing interest in school. Even though your mother and brother have apologized to her family and there has been reconciliation between the families, no one wants to see you again.

Aggravating features:

8. The aggravating features of the offending are as follows:
   • vulnerability of the victim given her young age;
   • a degree of premeditation. As facts show, you sexually assaulted the victim on multiple occasions as she slept showing predatory behavior against the young vulnerable victim;^[1]
   • as her step-father, you lived with and had parental responsibilities for the victim (Family Safety Act 2013, section 17);
   • gross breach of trust not only of the victim, but also your wife and her family who took you in to their home for you to then sexually abuse the victim, your wife’s daughter in her home where she is entitled to feel safe;
   • your age disparity with the victim of approximately 26 years;
   • the multiplicity of offending over a long period of time, up to 15 months; and
   • the impact on the victim of your offending.

The mitigating features:

9. The mitigating features personal to you are:
   • the reconciliation that has occurred and the apology expressed to your wife and the victim through your family members and your letter;
   • your expressed remorse seen in the reference from the Assembly of God dated 9^th May 2025 and other material before me;
   • your prior good character. The only thing that speaks to your prior good character is the absence of any prior convictions and a supportive letter from the AOG, so I will extend this discount. I note that there are no references that attest to your prior good character and deeds; and
   • your guilty plea.
10. While your mother’s seeks leniency in sentencing, as any mother understandably would, that does not qualify for mitigation.

Discussion:

11. S.T, according to what your wife told police, you began to live together in December 2022. You were taken into her home where she lives with her family and her daughter, the victim. As your step-daughter would sleep, you would go to her in the dark of night, remove her shorts and her underwear and then lick her vagina. You would do this after you had an argument with her mother. She was a child and vulnerable as she slept. People are at their most vulnerable when they are asleep. People, particularly children, are entitled to feel safe in their homes and in their beds when they go to sleep at night. In this case, you have robbed the victim of her innocence and I expect, sense of security within her own home and amongst male family members. Your behaviour was predatory and appalling. That you might sexually assault your step-daughter as some form of retribution against your wife is disgraceful. You will live with this stigma the rest of your life.
12. In sentencing you, I am guided by the sentencing bands established by the Court of Appeal in Attorney General v Lua [2016] WSCA 1 (19 February 2016). In her submissions, Ms Ioane says your offending falls within the higher end band 2 and seeks 12 year sentence start point. Ms Tuimaleali’ifano submits a 4 year sentence start point, placing your offending at the high end of band 1 and low end of band 2.
13. Having regard to the nature and multiplicity of your offending and its duration, the vulnerability of the victim, your relationship with her and the aggravating factors that I have identified, your offending falls within band 2, of moderate seriousness. This is not a case of brief skin on skin offending such as in Police v JP [2021] WSSC 62 or Police v SL [2024] WSSC 85. It is also more serious than Police v EA [2016] WSSC 16 involving a single act of digital penetration of an 8 year old victim, the defendant’s cousin, where a 6 year sentence start point was adopted.
14. In reaching a start point, I have had regard to Police v XR [2018] WSSC 16 (2 February 2018) involving a 22 year old defendant sentenced for incest and sexual connection with a child under 12, his sister. Like this case, the sexual connection involved licking of the victim’s vagina. An 8 year sentence start point was adopted. This case is again, more serious. However, I have also had regard to Police v Siaosi [2023] WSSC 69 involving various forms of sexual connection against a 7 year old victim including 4 instances of digital penetration where a 10 year start point was adopted. This case is not as serious.
15. Having regard to Attorney General v Lua and the authorities to which I have referred, your offending falls within mid-range band 2 with numerous aggravating factors. I adopt a 9 year sentence start point on a totality basis. From that start point, I deduct 9 months for your prior good character, 12 months for the apology, remorse and the reconciliation that has occurred and from the balance, 15 months for the late guilty pleas leaving an end sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

The penalty:

16. Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced as follows, less remand in custody:
    • (a) charge 1 of sexual connection with a child under 12 in charging document dated 7^th May 2025, 6 years’ imprisonment on a totality basis; and
    • (b) all remaining charges, 3 years each charge to be served concurrently to charge 1.

JUSTICE CLARKE

---

^[1] R v AM [2010] NZCA 114; [2010] 2 NZLR 750 at [37].