Police v MVFT [2017] WSYC 1 (7 April 2017)

YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
Police v MVFT [2017] WSYC 1

Case name:	Police v MVFT
Citation:	[2017] WSYC 1
Decision date:	7 April 2017
Parties:	Police v MVFT, of Mulifanua and Afega
Hearing date(s):	16 February 2917
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	Youth
Place of delivery:	In the Youth Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Senior DCJ Fepuleai A. Roma
On appeal from:
Order:	Prosecution has not proven the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is accordingly dismissed.
Representation:	I. Atoa for Prosecution T. Leavai for Accused
Catchwords:	Willfully giving false information to Police– evidence – discussion
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Police Offences Ordinance 1961 s10(2),
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

M.V.F.T, of Mulifanua and Afega.
Accused

Counsel:
I. Atoa for National Prosecution Office
T. Leavai for Accused
Hearing: 16 February 2017
Decision: 07 April 2017

DECISION OF JUDGE ROMA

Charge

2. The accused faces 1 charge of willfully giving false information, namely a statement dated 14 June 2016 to Detective Senior Sergeant Efo Moalele with intent to mislead her in the execution of her duties. (s10 (2) Police Offences Ordinance 1961).

Evidence

3. The prosecution called 3 witnesses. The first was Inspector Fata Manuele Pemila, Assistant Head of CID, who was contacted by a representative of Samoa Vicitim Support Group (SVSG) to receive and investigate the accused’s complaint. The second was Constable Vitolina Niko. She was present when the accused was interviewed by Detective Sergeant Moalele and gave the statement dated 14 June 2016. The third witness was Constable Topelei Ah Ching. She was present when the accused was brought back the second time and her second statement obtained.
4. The prosecution evidence is that on 14 June 2016, the police were contacted by a representative of SVSG and asked to investigate a complaint by the accused about an alleged sexual offending. The SVSG representative then accompanied the accused to the Police Station where a standard form was completed before the case was assigned to Detective Sergeant Moalele as investigating officer.
5. Detective Sergeant Moalele then obtained from the accused a statement dated 14 June 2016 (Exhibit P1). The statement has 3 pages and is signed by both the accused and Sergeant Moalele as witness. A lot is said in the statement but paragraph 2 states the following:

“Ua ou tuuina atu lenei faamatalaga i leoleo e avea ma faamatalaga tagi, e faasaga i le uso o lo’u tama e igoa ia F.F.T, sa matou nonofo faatasi i totonu o lo matou aiga i Afega, i lona faia lea o ni faigaaiga faifaamalosi ia te au, faatasi ai ma lona faaalialiina mai lea o lona itutinosa ia te au, i le masina o Mati o le tausaga lea na te’a nei 2015, o le taimi lea o loo 14 o’u tausaga ma o loo ou aoga i le Kolisi o Sagaga i Afega, o loo ave ai la’u vasega 10. Sa faapea foi ona ia faaalialiina lona itutinosa i nai o’u uso laiti o S.V ua 14 nei ona tausaga, ma le isi o’u uso o D.V ua 12 nei ona tausaga, i le masina lava lea o Mati 2015 i totonu o le matou fale i Afega lava.”

6. At the end of the statement, the accused acknowledges that it had been explained to and understood by her. She also acknowledges an understanding that she would the subject of police charges if the information she gave was false and misled the police in their investigation.
7. Following the accused’s statement, police went on to interview “S.V”, a sister of the accused who is also named in the statement as one of the victims of the alleged sexual offending. Police found that S.V’s statement contradicted the accused’s. SVSG was then contacted but police were advised that the accused and her sister had escaped from SVSG’s care.
8. When police could not locate the accused, they requested her family’s assistance in bringing her in. She was finally brought in on 19 August 2016 when she made a second statement (Exhibit P2) admitting that what she told police on 14 June 2016 about an alleged sexual offending by her uncle involving her and her younger sisters was false.
9. The statement was witnessed by Constable Vitolina Niko and part of it states as follows:

“ ... O la’u faamatalaga sa fai muamua e le sa’o ma e sese foi, ua uma foi ona ou saini ai. E sese foi au tala ia na tau ai igoa o ou uso laiti o S.V ma D.V. E lei iai se mea faapea na tupu.”

“O le mafuaaga o lou faia o ia faamatalaga sese i leoleo ona sa faaoso au e M.L lea e vaaia le Victim Support ou te sau e ta’u le mea sao i leoleo, ina ua uma ona talanoa M.L ma le Pule Aoga a Sagaga ... O lo’u lelava tali fesili na mafua ai ona ou faamatalaina i ai le ma faigaaiga ma F.F.T. Na ou iloa lelei e sese a’u faamatalaga ia.”

10. Under cross examination, Constable Vitolina concedes that when the accused made her second statement, she also informed police about being influenced by a representative of SVSG to make her first and false statement implicating her uncle.
11. The accused elected to give evidence. She does not dispute having made 2 statements to Police, one on 14 June 2016 and another on 19 August 2016. She does not also dispute that her statement of 14 June 2016 where she alleges sexual offending by her uncle F.F.T on her and her sisters was false. She says however that the reason why she made it was because she was told to do so by the representative of SVSG. According to the accused, M.L told her to make the false statement against F.F.T so that he would be charged.
12. Under cross examination, the accused concedes that when she made her statement on 14 June 2016, she knew she was giving police false information. She maintains however that she did so under the influence of M.L, so that her uncle F.F.T would get into trouble.

Law

13. Section 10(2) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961 states as follows:

“A person who willfully gives a false name or information to a constable with intent to mislead him or her in the execution of his or her duty commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.”

14. In its simple and ordinary meaning, “willfully” means “deliberately” and “intentionally”.
15. To sustain the charge against the accused, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following ingredients:
    • (i) The accused gave false information to a constable;
    • (ii) The giving of that false information was willful;
    • (iii) The accused intended to mislead the constable in the execution of her duties.

Discussion

(i) False Information

16. It is not disputed that the accused’s complaint statement to police on 14 June 2016 alleging sexual offending by “F.F.T” on her and her younger sisters was false. I find proven the first ingredient.
    • (ii) Willfulness
17. As to the second ingredient, Prosecution argues that the accused was not a young girl likely to be influenced into making a police complaint about something as serious as she alleged. They point to the detailed nature of her false statement and submit that M.L or anyone of SVSG could not have known of such details but the accused, and therefore could not have influenced her in making that particular statement.
18. I am not persuaded by that argument. The accused’s unchallenged evidence is that she was told by SVSG to lay the complaint against her uncle so that he would be charged. Constable Vitolina confirms that when the accused’s second statement was made, police were informed of her claim of being influenced in making her first statement. In fact, the accused mentions that in her second statement. But police never raised with SVSG the truthfulness or otherwise of the accused’s claim.
19. There is nothing in the evidence to explain why police did not at least raise with SVSG the accused’s allegation of being influenced. They might not have found the accused credible enough to warrant further investigation. But that is not the point.
20. Significantly in my view, the accused had been under SVSG care; she was brought to police by a SVSG representative when the false statement was made; she subsequently escaped from the care of SVSG; she informed the police when brought back the second time that she was influenced in making the first statement; and she repeated that claim in her oral testimony.
21. The police were made aware in advance of the accused’s claim. They did not investigate, and in the absence of evidence from the prosecution as to whether there was any truth in what the accused alleged, I am left in a reasonable doubt that when she gave police false information, she did so deliberately and intentionally.
22. I bear in mind that in her second statement (Exhibit P2), the accused states that she was influenced by M.L to tell the truth (“faaoso au e M.L e ta’u le mea sa’o ...”). That is inconsistent with the entirety of the statement. It is also the complete opposite of her oral testimony. Whether or not she was told to tell the truth, her unchallenged evidence is that she was told and influenced to give the first and false statement.
23. The prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof in respect of the second ingredient.
    • (iii) Intent to mislead
24. I am also not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that when the accused gave the false statement, she intended to mislead to police in the execution of their duties. On one view of the evidence, the accused knew that she was making a false statement. It contained allegations and details of serious sexual offending and she could not have intended anything but to mislead the police.
25. Equally on the other and in view of the circumstances I have referred under the discussion of the second ingredient, I am also left in a reasonable doubt that she had the required intent to mislead the police.

Conclusion

26. For the above reasons, I find that the prosecution has not proven the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE FEPULEAI AMEPEROSA ROMA