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

Police v Aukuso [2006] WSSC 59 (4 November 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

ANITONE AUKUSO
male of Lalovi Mulifanua and Sa’asa’ai,
AVETUSI FALUTE
male of Lalovi Mulifanua and
ROSETA SAKAIO
male of Lalovi Mulifanua.
Accused

Counsel: A Lesā for prosecution
All three accused in person

Sentence: 04 November 2006

SENTENCE

The charge

All three accused are jointly charged under s.79 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 with the crime of wilfully causing grievous bodily harm without lawful justification which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge the accused have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

The offending

Even though the accused all pleaded guilty to the charge against them, the accused Anitone Aukuso and Roseta Sakaio denied certain parts of the summary of facts prepared and produced by the prosecution. In consequence, the prosecution called the victim to give evidence on those parts of the summary of facts. The accused Anitone and Roseta then cross-examined the victim. Their cross-examination did not shake the evidence of the victim who was quite firm on those parts of the summary of facts denied by the two accused. After the victim gave evidence, the opportunity was given to Anitone and Roseta to give and call evidence. Both of them did not want to give or call evidence. I then decided to accept the evidence given by the victim on the parts of the summary of facts denied by Anitone and Roseta and rejected the denials by the two accused.

The summary of facts shows that on Saturday night, 15 July 2006, at about 11pm, the victim and a friend were drinking beer in front of the Airport Lodge at Mulifanua. At the same time, the accused were drinking beer nearby and they had been drinking since 4pm in the afternoon. The accused Roseta then asked for some bottles of beer from the victim but the victim refused as he did not have enough beer. Sometime after that, the police arrived and told the victim and his friend to disperse. The victim and his friend then made their way to Lalovi in Mulifanua where the victim was to stay. Shortly after, the victim’s friend left and the victim walked by himself along the road.

The three accused must have followed the victim and when they caught up with him, walking along the road by himself, the accused Anitone punched the victim three times. The first punch hit the victim on the left side of his jaw, the second punch landed on the victim’s mouth, and the third punch landed on the victim’s head causing him to lose his balance. The victim then ran to a nearby house for assistance but the accused Avetusi caught up to him and punched him in the face until he was stopped by the owner of the house. The accused then told the owner of the house that they will take the victim home but on their way they assaulted the victim again by punching him until he started to bleed. A punch by the accused Roseta landed on the left cheek of the victim. This assault continued until a person from a nearby house intervened.

The victim was later taken to the Motootua National Hospital. A report dated 6 November 2006 from the dentist who examined and treated the victim shows that the victim sustained two fractures to his lower jaw and had to have a surgical operation to reduce and immobilize the two fractures. His jaws were wired with stainless steel wire for about five weeks.

The victim

The victim is a 34 year old male from the village of Salua in Manono-uta. He is single and a carpenter by profession. No doubt he was not able to practise his profession while undergoing treatment for his injuries.

The accused

The accused Anitone Aukuso is a 25 year old male; the accused Avetusi Falute is a 21 year old male; and the accused Roseta Sakaio is a 26 year old male. All of them are from the village of Lalovi Mulifanua.

Anitone is single. He has no formal employment but supports his family through fishing and working on their plantation. He had little formal education as he left school early on his own free will. Information provided by a member of his family to the probation service shows that he was a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. He is a first offender. He has also presented thirty boxes of canned herrings and a fine mat to his village by way of penalty for this incident.

Avetusi is also single and has no formal employment but assists his family by working on their plantation and selling produce at the market. He left school early in life. Avetusi’s father told the probation service that his son is a person of good character. He is a first offender. He has also presented thirty boxes of canned herrings and a fine mat to his village by way of penalty for this incident.

Roseta is married with one child. He works as a security officer. He is of good character but his weakness is drinking alcohol. A member of his family told the probation service that Roseta has changed since this incident. He is a first offender. He has made a presentation of thirty boxes of canned herrings and a fine mat to his village by way of penalty for this incident.

Mitigating circumstances

The mitigating circumstances are: (a) the pleas of guilty by the accused at the first available opportunity, (b) the fact that they are all first offenders and had been people of good character prior to the commission of this offence, (c) the substantial penalties they have paid to their village, and (d) their relatively young ages.

Aggravating circumstances

This is a case of a vicious and persistent attack by three men on one individual. The attack was also unprovoked. The refusal by the victim to give any bottles of beer to the accused because he did not have enough beer for himself and his friend is not provocation. The fact that the victim ran away to a nearby house for help but the accused followed him and told the owner of the house to let them take the victim home and then assaulted him again is a serious aggravating factor. The assault did not stop until another person intervened. The injuries inflicted on the victim were also very serious. The effect of those injuries on the victim is also to be taken into account.

The decision

This type of case where a high degree of violence is inflicted by way of a persistent joint assault without provocation by a group of men on one individual calls for a deterrent sentence. Having regard to the need for deterrence as well as the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I impose these sentences.

Each of the accused Anitone Aukuso, Avetusi Falute and Roseta Sakaio is convicted and sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia, for prosecution