IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

VILIAMU LATU
male of Sogi and Samalaeulu Savaii.
Defendant

Counsels:		Mr Patu for prosecution 
Mr Faaiuaso for defendant

Sentencing Date:	27 August 2008

SENTENCE BY JUSTICE VAAI

Defendant you appear for sentence on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm and of unlawful sexual intercourse. 

In September 2005 during the Teuila Festival the accused and the complainant met for the first time. The complainant was then aged 15, a student at Year 9 of Leifiifi College and living at Vaitele fou. The accused was aged 19, living at Vaimoso with relatives and employed as a carpenter.

They met again on a Saturday morning about one week after. They went for bus rides around the town area and its outskirts; they ate at the Fugalei market, they went to the seawall; they walked to the park to the western side of the fish market, sat under a coconut tree and had their first kiss, followed by many other kisses. They then decided to elope.

They eloped to the village of Afega. They lived as husband and wife and had sexual intercourse from then on until Wednesday morning the following week when the complainant’s older sister and brother came and took the complainant back to Vaitele-fou. Later that day the accused went to Vaitele-fou. He spent the night with the complainant’s family. The following morning after everyone left the complainant’s house the accused and the complainant eloped again to Faleasiu village where they lived for a week before moving to Samalaeulu Savaii where they continued to live as husband and wife until December.

In December the accused and complainant at the request of the complainant’s mother moved to Vaitele-fou to live with the complainant’s mother. The accused also commenced employment at the Outriggers hotel where the complainant’s older sister was also employed. 

As counsels will undoubtedly agree, living together with the wife’s mother can be very irritating and should always be avoided. The accused and the complainant were not free to run their lives as husband and wife. They were virtually dictated to. The complainant’s mother then decided to move to live in the village of Eva and wanted the complainant and accused to go with her. They had no choice but to move with the complainant’s mother. The mother and economics dictated the show.

Tensions in the de facto relationship of the accused and the complainant had begun to generate and reached a stage where the complainant was running away from her mother’s home at Eva and spending time somewhere else. Both the accused and the complainant then decided to move to Mulinuu to live with the accused’s relatives but it did not alleviate the problems in their relationship. It was suspected by the accused that the complainant’s mother and sister were trying to cause a break up between the accused and the complainant.

In June 2006 the accused was suspected of stealing from his employer the Outrigger Hotel. In the late morning of the 5th June 2006 the accused and the complainant were accompanied to the Apia Police by the complainant’s older sister. In the presence of the accused, the complainant told the investigating police officer that the items stolen from the Outrigger Hotel were at the accused’s family home at Sogi. This infuriated the accused. He got hold of a broken glass and held it in his hand.

As the complainant was walking towards the police car to accompany a police officer to Sogi to fetch the stolen items the accused grabbed the complainant. He then proceeded to scratch her face with the broken glass. He then slit his own throat with the same broken glass.

Both the accused and the victim were rushed to the National Hospital for treatment. The accused was discharged on the 7th June 2006; he was taken direct to the police at Apia and charged not only with causing grievous bodily harm but also with having sexual intercourse with the complainant in September 2005 when they eloped.

The complainant was treated and discharged on the 5th June and later that day she gave a police statement. There is no medical report regarding her injuries but I am told by counsel that the injuries required 15 stitches. 

Grievous Bodily Harm

I accept from the summary of facts that the accused intended to cause severe and very serious injuries to the complainant. He was angry with the complainant whilst she was conversing with a police officer. He spotted broken glass and discreetly grabbed it with intent to inflict injuries to the complainant.

The attack was unprovoked. The attack with the sharp broken glass was aimed at the face of the complainant. The complainant was very fortunate that she escaped fatal, or life threatening injuries. 

Resorting to violence when one is angry should be discouraged and must be dealt with severely to deter. The purpose of the sentence here is to protect society, to punish the offender and to deter him and other like-minded people from such conduct. Other factors like remorsefulness, previous good record, early guilty plea and other personal circumstances will count towards mitigation of sentence.

Considering the weapon used, the premeditation, the lack of provocation, and the nature of the injuries sustained I take three years as a starting point. For the early guilty plea I deduct three months, for his previous good record and remorsefulness I deduct four months. 

For the charge of causing grievous bodily injury the accused will serve 2 years and 5 months imprisonment. 

Unlawful Sexual Intercourse

It is quite obvious that if the accused and the complainant had continued to live harmoniously as husband and wife this charge would never have been laid. In September 2005 after the accused and complainant have eloped the second time the mother of the complainant agreed to allow the accused and the complainant to live as husband and wife. 

The events at the Apia Police headquarters on the 5th June 2006 had sparked the laying of the complaint for unlawful sexual intercourse.

It must be said however that the purpose of the law against this type of offending is to protect young girls from being exploited by the lust of older members of the opposite sex, but also to protect young girls from themselves until they are old enough to make informed choices.

The complainant in this case was on the day living with the accused as husband and wife with the consent of her mother. Offending by the accused was therefore condoned by the complainant’s family. Perhaps it is for this reason that the prosecution in its sentencing memorandum refrained from recommending a custodial or any other form of sentence.

For those reasons then, for this offence the accused is convicted and discharged. 

JUSTICE VAAI