Police v II [2016] WSYC 6 (8 September 2016)

YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
Police v II [2016] WSYC 6

Case name:	Police v II
Citation:	[2016] WSYC 6
Decision date:	8 September 2016
Parties:	POLICE (Informant) II male of Vaiusu (Young Offender)
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):	D10/16
Jurisdiction:	Youth
Place of delivery:	In the Youth Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Judge Fepuleai A Roma
On appeal from:
Order:	- Ordered to complete 40 hours community work under direction and supervision of the Probation Service within 6 months, with the following conditions: (i) Observe a curfew of 7pm to 6am; (ii) Undertake any other programme as directed by Probation. - Ordered to come back to this Court on 8 October 2016 at 12.30pm for judicial monitoring
Representation:	O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
	T. Tuioti for Young Person
Catchwords:	Grievous bodily harm – mitigating factor – aggravating factor – sentence
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013 s118(2), Young Offenders Act 2007 s15 & 16,
Cases cited:	Police v. Vesi [2014] WSSC 107 (24 November 2014).
Summary of decision:

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

II, male of Vaiusu.
Young Person

Counsel:
O. Tagaloa for National Prosecution Office
T. Tuioti for the Young Person

Sentence: 8 September 2016

SENTENCING REMARKS OF JUDGE ROMA

Charge

1. II, you appear this morning for sentencing on one charge of being party to causing serious bodily injury under section 118(2), Crimes Act 2013. The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment.
1. At first you denied the charge. On 26 May 2016, through Counsel, your not guilty plea was vacated and substituted with a guilty plea.

The Offending

2. According to the brief Summary of facts which you accept, the incident from which the charge arises occurred on the evening of 19 December 2015 at your village of Vaiusu.
3. Along with some members of your family, you went onto the victim’s property and threw rocks at his house. Your actions and those of your family members involved caused bodily injuries to the victim and some of his family members. The Summary however does not say what those injuries were.
4. But in the pre sentence meeting report, you told probation and those present that you were on your way to the shop when you saw some people throwing rocks at your uncle’s place. You joined and started throwing rocks back at them.
5. The victim who was around the vicinity found his way to where your older brother was. They fought, and when he fell, you managed to land a few punches on his face.

Aggravating features of the Offending

6. The only aggravating feature of your offending is the impact on the victim. But whilst the summary refers to injuries to the victim and you concede to having landed punches on the victim’s face, there is nothing before me to confirm what the injuries were and whether or not they required treatment.

Mitigating features of the Offending

7. Firstly, I accept that you became involved much later when you came across people throwing rocks at your uncle’s place, and subsequently when you saw your brother fighting with the victim. Your involvement was a spur of the moment reaction. There was lack of premeditation on your part.
8. Secondly, there is nothing before me to confirm what the victim and his family members’ injuries were and whether or not treatment was required.

Aggravating features relating to you as an Offender

9. There are none.

Mitigating features relating to you as an Offender

10. I take into account your guilty plea though not entered at the earliest opportunity.
11. I also accept that the differences between your family and that of the victim have been settled and relationships have improved. You have also apologised to the victim. All this is confirmed in the pre sentence meeting report by Probation.
12. I must also consider your personal circumstances. You are 16 years of age. The Summary and your Counsel say that you were working at a food stall at the time of the offending. The pre sentence meeting report says on the other hand, that you were in school and attending Year 8 at the time of the offending. Even if you were in fact attending school, I do not believe that you would be in Year 8 level given your age.
13. Either way, you are of young age. A testimonial from your Catholic Church deacon speaks of your good character. Your Counsel also says that you were remanded in custody for a week, including Christmas day, as a result of this incident. Hopefully, you have learnt something valuable from going through the criminal process, including the time you spent in custody.

Discussion

14. I am guided in passing sentence by the provisions of the Young Offenders Act 2007, particularly sections 15 and 16, which promote rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders into the community. Under those provisions, the Court must firstly decide whether the interests of justice require a defendant’s conviction, before considering the sentencing options referred to therein.
15. Previous relevant sentencing decisions are also helpful. Your Counsel refers to a sentencing decision of His Honour Justice Nelson in Police v. Vesi [2014] WSSC 107 (24 November 2014). Whilst not a decision of the Youth Court, the facts are quite similar, and the younger defendant was placed on supervision for 18 months.
16. Taking into account the circumstances and gravity of your offending, I am satisfied that the interests of justice do not require your conviction.

Decision

17. Pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Young Offenders Act 2007, you are ordered to complete 40 hours community work under direction and supervision of the Probation Service within 6 months, with the following conditions:
    • (i) Observe a curfew of 7pm to 6am;
    • (ii) Undertake any other programme as directed by Probation.
18. You are to come back to this Court on 8 October 2016 at 12.30pm for judicial monitoring.

JUDGE FEPULEAI A ROMA