IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

MEAPALA TANIELU SIONE
male of Tiavea-uta.
Accused

Counsel: A Lesa for prosecution
RT Faai’uaso for accused

Sentence: 4 April 2006

SENTENCE

The charge

The accused is charged under ss.59, 65 and 67 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 with the crime of manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This replaces a charge of murder which had been withdrawn. To the charge of manslaughter the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

The summary of facts prepared by the prosecution and confirmed by the accused, as amended, shows that on Friday evening, 20 January 2006, at approximately 4pm, the accused and the deceased were drinking homebrew at the house of the accused at the village of Tiavea-uta. At about 7.30pm there was an argument between the accused and the deceased whereby the deceased left the house of the accused. Shortly afterwards the accused’s house was pelted with stones. The accused then took a machete and went looking for the deceased whom he believed was responsible for throwing stones at his house. When the accused encountered the deceased, he attacked the deceased with his machete by delivering about five strikes. There is no mention that the deceased had any means with which to defend himself. The deceased suffered two lacerated wounds to his head, two deep lacerated wounds to his back, and a deep lacerated wound to his left hand. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

The deceased
		The deceased at the time of this incident was 25 years old. He was a nephew of the accused and married with one child. He was also from the same village of Tiavea-uta as the accused.

The accused.
		The accused is a 50 year old male. He is married with children. He has been banished from his village as a result of this incident. He is now living with his wife and children in the Apia area. As it appears from the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service, all of the accused’s properties at Tiavea-uta have also been burnt to the ground. The accused has also had to abandon his big plantation at Tiavea-uta.

		As the accused was banished from his village soon after this incident, it has not been possible to effect a reconciliation as the accused cannot set foot in the village again while the banishment is in force.

		The accused is also a first offender and as it appears from the pre-sentence report, the testimonials received by the probation service on the accused show that his behaviour in this matter was completely out of character.

Mitigating circumstances
		The accused’s plea of guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity, his expression of remorsefulness through counsel, the provocation from the deceased, the fact that the accused is a first offender and the present offence is completely out of character, and the punishment the accused has already suffered by way of banishment and the burning to the ground of all his properties in the village may all be taken into account as mitigating circumstances.

		The fact that the accused was under the influence of alcohol is not a mitigating circumstance as self-induced intoxication does not mitigate the commission of a crime.

Aggravating circumstances
		The number of wounds (five of them) inflicted by the accused with a machete on the deceased, the serious nature of those wounds, and the age difference of 25 years between the accused and the deceased who was the accused’s own nephew are aggravating circumstances in this case.

The decision
		As pointed out in Police v Pili [2005] WSSC9 (sentence passed on 8 August 2005), the wide range of circumstances which may give rise to the crime of manslaughter and their varying degrees of culpability have led to sentences imposed by this Court which range from lengthy terms of imprisonment to non-custodial sentences such as terms of probation. For the same reasons it has not been possible to set a tariff sentence for manslaughter: see Police v Phillip [1999] WSSC1 per Wilson J at p.2. It is for the Judge in each case to determine the appropriate sentence by having regard to the circumstances of the particular offence and the culpability of the particular offender. 

		Having regard to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of this case, and bearing in mind that the killing of another person is always an extremely serious matter, Mr Lesa for the prosecution submitted that a term of 5 years imprisonment would be the appropriate sentence. I have given careful consideration to all the circumstances including the gravity of the offending, the need for deterrence, and the severity of the punishment that the village has already meted out to the accused and have decided to accept the submission by counsel for the prosecution. A sentence of imprisonment would have been imposed in this case in any event notwithstanding the banishment so that the accused would still have been excluded from his village and his plantation by operation of the criminal law without the banishment. I have also taken into consideration the destruction of the accused’s properties.

		The accused is therefore convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. By the end of that sentence the village should have forgiven the accused and accept him back.

----------------- -----------------
 CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitors
Attorney General
Richard’s Law Firm