Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Samoa

Tailo v Police [2025] WSCA 3 (19 June 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Tailo v Police [2025] WSCA 3 (19 June 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

TAALA TIASI TAILO

Appellant

AND:

P O L I C E

Respondent

Hearing: Monday 9 June 2025

Coram: Hon. Justice Harrison

Hon. Justice Asher

Hon. Justice Young

Hon. Justice Nelson

Counsel: I Sapolu for Appellant

V Leilua for Respondent

Decision: Thursday 19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment imposed by Justice Roma on the appellant, Taala Tiasi Tailo. The sentence followed his conviction by a unanimous verdict of panel of assessors on an alternative charge of manslaughter. The other charge of which he was found not guilty, was for murder. It was submitted for Mr Tailo that the starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment was too high and an error in law.

Background facts

2. We go into these into the facts in some detail as they were relied on in the submissions for Mr Tailo.
3. The victim, Raymond Taituave, and Mr Tailo were drinking with a mutual friend at the friend’s place of residence on 4 April 2018. At midnight, neighbours who proved to be important witnesses, Matila Uelese and Tagaloa Aperila, were woken by the noise that they were making. They knew their neighbour and Mr Taituave. Mr Aperila contacted the Police to seek their assistance in controlling the noise. The Police were unable to help. The noise became louder and ultimately was so excessive that Mr Aperila went out on to the road that ran past his house and the neighbour’s home. They both described “vulgar language” being exchanged in the neighbour’s house.
4. Mr Aperila described how he saw Mr Taituave leaving the house and then zigzagging down the road walking away. He was using angry words directed at those still in the house. There were lights from his house and other houses on the road. Then he heard Mr Tailo saying “that kind of person I’d just open the mouth and put the gun inside and pah pah pah”. He heard Mr Tailo say “pah” three times. Then he heard him say that “that kind of person even if he seeks refuge in a house, I’ll run him over with my car”. Another translation of the sentence which was recounted in Samoan is “don’t worry – even if he goes home, I’ll just come hit him with the car”.
5. He then saw Mr Tailo go to his car, a Toyota RAV4, and speed away down the road at between 20 and 30 miles per hour. He hit Mr Taituave and he fell on the road. The car then stopped with Mr Taituave lying on the road and then reversed backwards hitting his arms, sides and body, and breaking the front bumper of the car which was found lying on the side of the road. At this point, Mr Aperila heard Mr Tailo yell “there he is dead, he is lying there. Mr Taituave was taken urgently to hospital but died shortly after admission.
6. From a Pathologist’s examination, the deceased’s injuries included a severely broken leg, multiple broken ribs, bleeding around and into his lungs, tears of the lining of the liver and spleen and bleeding into the belly cavity. There was some bleeding over the surface of his brain and grazes over the trunk, scalp and face.
7. It was the evidence of the pathologist that the broken left leg with a primary strike point was consistent with an injury caused by a car or with something such as a motor vehicle, and that the severe chest, abdominal and head injuries would be “consistent with being run over by a higher vehicle than a standard car or being secondarily run over”.

The sentencing decision

8. Justice Roma, who had presided at the trial, found as aggravating features of the offending:
   • (i) Use of a vehicle as a weapon to commit the assault;
   • (ii) Vulnerability of the victim – he was intoxicated and walking away but [Mr Tailo] followed him in [his] vehicle;
   • (iii) Failure to render assistance – after hitting the victim with the vehicle, [Mr Tailo] did not render assistance but reversed and informed others that he was on the road dying;
   • (iv) Impact – [it] caused the victim serious and multiple injuries that led to his death. The impact on his family must also be considered.
9. The Judge found that Mr Tailo intentionally drove at the victim and struck him before reversing without rendering any assistance. The Judge considered that a starting point of 12 years was appropriate. He made deductions of three years each for personal circumstances, previous good character and time spent on bail. This total deduction of three years left a period of nine years’ imprisonment which was the sentence imposed.

Relevant authority

10. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. There is no sentencing guideline or tariff decision in Samoa or indeed in New Zealand, as manslaughter cases are so “highly fact specific”. Analogous cases may be helpful, but each case must be considered on its own facts.
11. It has been observed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in R v Rapira that culpability is higher in cases where manslaughter results from intentional harm:^[1]
    • Culpability is higher in cases where manslaughter results from intentional harm. In such cases, the sentence imposed must reflect the need for deterrence of intentional conduct which risks serious harm or death. Other factors such as provocation or circumstances personal to the offender which may diminish responsibility may affect culpability significantly. Sentences in other cases where the death giving rise to liability for manslaughter was a result of intentional violence may provide guidance. But the culpability of each offender need to be assessed in the particular context.
12. The decision in Rapira was been followed by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Kolio.^[2] It has also been followed by the Supreme Court in a number of cases.^[3]

Assessment of the 12-year starting point

13. The submissions by Ms Fuimaono-Sapolu and Mrs Sapolu focused on the facts of the offending and how the culpability of that offending was unsuited to the 12-year starting point. It was submitted that there had been provocation by the victim which had led to the offending and which should have been taken into account. Emphasis was placed on the aggravating features that were taken into account in a manslaughter appeal to this Court in the case of Faleao v Police.[4] In that case the Court of Appeal accepted a starting point of 12 years imprisonment, but the end sentence was reduced by 2 years’ imprisonment when factual circumstances demonstrating some clear reduction in culpability were considered. This was because there were significant mitigating factors in that case, in particular provocation and elements of self-defence which warranted the discount.
14. We find that those features were not present in this case. Indeed, based on the Judge’s observations and the evidence that was before the Court, the facts showed an intention on the part of Mr Tailo to cause significant injury to the victim. His remarks before and after the collision which are set out above indicate this. His actions in driving at 20 to 30 miles an hour into the deceased, hitting and severely breaking his leg are a clear indication of this intention. There was a pause after he initially rammed Mr Taituave giving Mt Tailo time to reconsider. Rather than going to Mr Taituave’s assistance, after that short pause Mr Tailo reversed over him. Mr Tailo’s reversal of the vehicle to go over the body of the victim apparently causing the severe internal injuries described by the pathologist, indicate a deliberate intention to injure. We accept that there is a slight degree of ambiguity in the Judge’s words in relation to that action of reversing back over the deceased, but we interpret his remarks as being intended to show that the act of reversing was a further sign of intention.
15. In relation to the submission that provocation should have been taken into account, the sentencing Judge considered this issue and made no deduction for it. As he observed, the victim did not inflict any violence on Mr Tailo, and there is no evidence that all his swearing and insults were directed at Mr Tailo. Mr Taituave was already leaving the party and was well down the road walking away before Mr Tailo decided to pursue him. As the Judge said, Mr Tailo’s “conduct was unprovoked and completely disproportionate in the circumstances”. We entirely agree with this observation. As Faleao demonstrates, provocation and elements of self-defence can be mitigating circumstances in assessing a manslaughter sentence. However, on this occasion there was no evidence of either.
16. Ultimately Mr Tailo did not proceed before us with a further claim in the Notice of Appeal that the sentencing Judge made an error in not taking into sufficient consideration pleas and mitigation. He was right to not do so, as on an overview the deductions made for personal factors by the sentencing Judge were generous. In particular we note that the Judge gave a year’s deduction for each of Mr Tailo’s personal circumstances and previous good character. Another judge might well have only made a single deduction of 12 months.

Conclusion

17. This was another occasion where a combination of alcohol and the angry and extremely violent use of an available weapon has been the central feature of this crime. Here a motor vehicle was the available weapon. It is our assessment of the facts that Mr Tailo may regard himself as fortunate that the assessors decided that a manslaughter verdict rather than murder was appropriate. The end sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was well within the range.

Result

18. The appeal is dismissed.
    

HON. JUSTICE HARRISON
HON. JUSTICE ASHER
HON. JUSTICE YOUNG
HON. JUSTICE NELSON

^[1] R v Rapira [2003] NZCA 217; [2003] 3 NZLR 794 (CA) at [128]. The case is sometimes cited using the neutral citation [2003] NZCA 217.

^[2] Attorney-General v Kolio [2008] WSCA 7 (19 September 2008).
^[3] Police v Lelei [2010] WSSC 101 (24 September 2010); Police v Taumaloto [2017] WSSC 160 (13 December 2017); Police v Pesefea [2018] WSSC 123 (8 October 2018); Police v Vitale [2019] WSSC 56 (1 November 2019); and Police v Neemia [2023] WSSC 9 (15 February 2023). I note that the case is cited as R v Raipira in some of these decisions.

^[4] Faleao v Police [2024] WSCA 3 (29 August 2024).