IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUVALU 2025

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1/24

BETWEEN
REGINA	 			
PROSECUTION

   AND

MAMOE SILIVA			
ACCUSED

Before 		Hon Justice   Sir John Muria

Hearing		29 September 2025

Ms E Saamu for Prosecution
Ms N Tusipese for Accused

J U D G E M E N T

Muria J:	Mr Mamoe you have been charged with the offence of attempted murder of your wife.  Originally you have pleaded not guilty to the charge but you have subsequently changed your plea to one of guilty.  The court has convicted you of the offence of attempted murder of wife on your own plea of guilty.

2.	The offence of attempted murder is one of the most serious offences under the criminal law, the Penal Code, of Tuvalu.  This is reflected in the punishment of life imprisonment provided under the law for such an offence.  This court, in sentencing you, must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of your conduct when you committed the offence.  In your case, the Court will take particular note of the fact that you committed the offence in a domestic violence setting.  This added further seriousness to your offending.

3.	In addition to the charge of attempted murder, you had also been charged with one count of Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm and two counts of Domestic Violence.  You had pleaded guilty to those charges and had already been sentenced on those counts.

	Factual Background
4.	This Court notes that those offences and this attempted murder count arose out of the same factual scenario.  This Court had, already considered those facts when it sentenced you on 25 March 2025 and I need not rehearse them here. Suffice only to say that you used a lethal weapon (machete) to attack your wife.  In your Statement to the police you said that the reason for attacking your wife was because when you went to her place of work to get a coconut scraper, you heard her talking to co-worker about you, something to the effect that she was tired of your jealousy and that you reacted angrily to your wife when you asked her for the coconut scraper.  Similarly your wife reacted to you angrily, as a result you assaulted her with the machete which you were holding.  She defended herself by putting her hands up to shield her face resulting in the cuts to her arms.  Your wife ran out of the office she shouted for help.  You ran after her and continued assaulting with the machete.  You stopped assaulting her only when the people held you and disarmed you.

	Consideration
5.	The circumstances clearly show an attempt on your part to cause serious harm to your wife and endangering her life.  You used a lethal weapon to attack your wife.  Your offending also took place in a domestic violence setting.  These are aggravating features in your case and which count against you.   

6.	On the other hand I take into account the mitigating factors which are placed before the Court by your counsel.  These include your guilty plea, which although late, saves your wife the victim, the ordeal of having to give evidence and re-live the trauma she had been through.  You had spent three years in custody awaiting for your ease to be brought before the Court.  You pleaded guilty to the ACABH and Domestic Violence offences, also arising out from this same factual circumstances and you had been sentenced for those offences already.

7.	The Court also takes into account your personal circumstances.  You have reconciled with your wife, your children and your family.  Your wife had forgiven you for what you had done to her.  You resumed family life and have been living peaceably in the community.  These demonstrate your willingness to rehabilitate yourself and be good member, not only to your family, but also to society in the community where you live. 

8.	The Court notes that reconciliation and forgiveness are features in the cultural and traditional lives of the people of Tuvalu.  They form part of the bed-rock of peaceful and harmonious co-existence in the communities in Tuvalu.  I accept their values in the society.  The Court however, must make clear that spousal forgiveness can never excuse any domestic violence and related offences, especially in a situation giving rise to serious offending such as that happened in the present case.  The Court must impose a sentence that fits the seriousness of the Offence committed and to show the interest of the public in deterring domestic violence and other offences.

	Starting point
9.	Counsel referred the Court to case law authorities in other Pacific Islands jurisdictions namely Fiji, Kiribati and Solomon Islands.  Counsel have not cited any precedent from Tuvalu on attempted murder.  I also have not been able to find any.

10.	The cases show that the sentences ranged from 3 to 10 years.  I feel that similar sentencing range for the offence of attempted murder should apply Tuvalu.  The starting point, however, must depend on, the circumstances of the particular case.

11.	Attempted murder is a very serious offence as demonstrated by the fact that the maximum sentence for the offence in life imprisonment.  The starting point on sentencing in the present case, taking into account the gravity of the offending, in my view should be six (6) years.

12.	Having set the starting point, the Court will next consider the aggravating factors and make uplift to the sentence.  The mitigating factors will then be taken into account to reduce the sentence to be imposed on the accused.  The Court will then impose what it considers to be the appropriate sentence.

	Key guiding factors in sentencing in the present case.

13.  	In this particular case I take the following factors as guides to consider what the appropriate should be:

(a)The first key factor in the present case is the charge itself:  attempted murder.  In Tuvalu, as in many murder carries the maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  The sentencing range for attempted murder, is not static, but rather variable, especially in this Region.  The cases cited by Counsel for the prosecution show the sentences, for attempted murder in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Samoa and Kiribati range from 3 years to lifetime imprisonment.

(b) Secondly, the weapon and level of violence used are also to be considered.  In this case, the accused used a machete aimed, at the neck.  The victim (wife) put her hands up to cover her face, resulting the cuts to her arms.  The victim was hospitalised for a long time.  This showed a high degree of violence.

(c) Thirdly, the accused pleaded guilty, although, a late plea, which the court will take into account.  But the accused will only be entitled to a limited discount for late guilty plea, compared to a 30% discount for early pleas.

(d) The accused served 3 years in remand, as well as being sentenced for 2 ½ years already for ACABH and DV which were lesser charges but arising from the same incidents.  For this regard, the Court will avoid double counting and will take into account the time already spent in custody.

(e) The accused’s current relationship with his wife (Victim) is a factor which, the Court will consider.  The victim has forgiven the accused.  They reconciled and now live together.  The Court will consider tis as a mitigating factor.  In some jurisdiction, this may only account for slight mitigation effect.  In Tuvalu cultural context, I feel hat maintaining harmonious relationship is an important aspect of the way of life of the people and their community based on forgiveness and reintegration.  This is restorative justice.  His brother-in-law has within to confirm that he forgive the accused for what he did to his sister.  In that background this Court and in the context of Tuvalu, forgiveness and reconciliation, even in a criminal case such as the present one, must be accorded due consideration.

(f) The accused is on bail pending sentence and has been abiding by his bail conditions.  This factor demonstrates that the accused is not a danger to the public and may add as a supporting mitigating factor.

(g) Since being on bail the accused has been gainfully employed by the sports Department, active in community and sports events.  The Court received a member of written commendations from various persons and authorities of his positive character and behaviour.

14.	There is no evidence that the assault on the victim was pre planned rather it was one of spontaneity.  This factor should add to the mitigation for the accused.

15.	Thus the sentence to be imposed on the accused should be:

		Starting point			-  6 years.

		Uplift for aggravation		-  3 years, uplifting to 9 years

		Deduct 15% for late guilty plea, that is, 1 ½ years

		Deduct 3 years for time spent in custody, giving him 4 ½ years.  

A further deduction for reconciliation and forgiveness of 2 years, giving  2 ½ years and a further 6 months reduction for his other mitigating considerations including good behaviour and gainful employment, resulting in a total sentence of 2 years.

	Sentence

16.  Taking into account all the above factors the Court imposes a sentence of two (2) years imprisonment on the accused. 

17.	The Court further considers that in the circumstances of this case, this is an appropriate case for the sentence to be suspended for 12 months on the condition that the accused does not commit any offence within the period of suspension.  If the accused breaches this condition, he will be arrested and take into prison to serve his two (2) years sentence for this offence and any other sentence imposed by the Court for his subsequent offending.

ORDER:	1.	The accused is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for the offence of attempted murder.

	2.	The 2 years sentence is suspended for 12 months.

Hon. Justice Sir John Muria
High Court of Tuvalu