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

Police v Teveseu [2010] WSSC 147 (16 August 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

ANDREW TELEA TEVESEU, male of Saletele Fagaloa and Brisbane Australia.
Defendant

Counsels: Mr G. Patu for prosecution
Mr R. Schuster for defendant

Sentemce: 16 August 2010

SENTENCE

This defendant appears for sentence on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm and also possession of narcotics. I will deal firstly with the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm which carries a 7 year maximum penalty at law.

The defendant is a few weeks shy of his 19th birthday and was previously living in Brisbane Australia with his adopted parents. He returned to Samoa in 2009 to help his natural mother with some personal matters and has stayed on since then. Probation pre-sentence report indicates he is a first offender who has had the benefits of a good education. He has a previous good character and there is no question that he should have known better than to do what he did in this case. I can only put his uncharacteristic actions down to spur of the moment offending which I am sure he now regrets.

Police summary of facts which has been accepted by defence counsel indicates that approximately at 10pm on the night of Saturday 18 September 2009 the defendant met the victim and a companion walking on the road. For reasons not made clear by the summary of facts the defendant engaged in some kind of assault on the victims friend. Paragraph 3 of the summary describes the defendants actions as "tapping the victims companion on the stomach". I do not know what a "tap" is but it sounds like some kind of physical contact occurred between the defendant and the victims friend. Whatever the case may be this not surprisingly provoked a reaction from the victim who grabbed the defendant by the neck and according to the summary of facts this resulted in breaking a rosary that was being worn around the defendants neck. This angered the defendant who went home armed himself with a knife and came back again according to the summary of facts "in pursuit of the victim".

He found the victim, called him over and when the victim got close he stabbed the left side of the victims face under the left ear. There has been no medical report produced to the court as the prosecution say the hospital have lost the relevant records. But the defendant and the victim are both fortunate that the stab did not sever the cartoid artery which is the large artery on the side of the neck underneath the ear that carries blood from the heart to the brain because severance of that artery would have caused death in minutes. What is before the court indicates that the injury required surgery and a hospital stay for the victim. According to the victim impact report it led to a temporary loss of the victims voice as well as his being only able to consume food by way of fluids for a month. And according to the report it has left a permanent scar under his left ear. Other consequences to the victim are mentioned in the report.

There is no doubting that the injury that was caused in this case was serious and was life threatening. His counsel has asked that the defendant be spared from prison submitting that the defendants actions were those of a naïve young man. That may be so Mr Telea but the fact that you resorted to the use of a knife means that imprisonment is an inevitable penalty. Because the minute a person arms himself with a lethal weapon such as a knife he has himself put one foot inside the prison door. The message that this court must continue to send to young people in our community is that if you cause a serious harm with a weapon like this you will likely end up in prison. I quote from the case of Police v Siilata [1998] WSSC 22:
"It must be made clear that this community will not tolerate weapons being used in fights, and imprisonment is necessary to discourage other young men who might think that they should use weapons in fights in the future."

And it is unfortunately becoming too common for young people to appear before the courts of this country for assaulting other young people using weapons. In Police v Fatu [2008] WSSC 39, striking a victim on the head with a beer bottle led to a 1½ year jail term; a husband stabbing a wife in her chest with a steak knife resulted in a 2½ year penalty in Police v Taueu [2007] WSSC 93; in Police v Ford [2007] WSSC 48, a woman stabbing another woman in the left side of the chest in the course of a fight resulted in a 2 year penalty of imprisonment.

Prosecution in this case are seeking 4½ years in prison be imposed in their submission. But as I have pointed out to prosecution counsel this morning, their memorandum is nonsensical because it refers to the use of stones and to other matters not covered in their summary of facts. The court will therefore for the purposes of sentencing ignore their submission.

Considering all the factors of your case I am of the view that a 3 to 3½ year term is appropriate for your matter. However there must be some allowance made for the factors in your favour which your lawyer has pointed out. These factors include the fact that you have a clean record, you are a young man, you are 18 going on 19 years of age, you have got a long life ahead of you. You have apologized to the victim according to the documents before the court, your families have reconciled and your family has paid a village sala to the village council. You pleaded guilty when the charge was reduced to grievous bodily harm. There has been some suggestion that there should be some reduction because of provocation but I make no allowance for that because the summary of facts indicated it was you who initiated this incident in relation to your actions of "tapping" the victims companion. However for all those factors I will reduce the penalty to 2 years in prison. On the charge of grievous bodily harm then you will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison and I direct that your term be served at the Olomanu Juvenile Facility at Mulifanua.

In relation to the other charge of possession of narcotics I note that you should be treated for these purposes as a first offender. I do not find any aggravation in the fact that this offence was committed while you were on bail because you were on bail having pleaded not guilty as you are entitled to do to the earlier charge of attempted murder. What is relevant in relation to the narcotics charge is the fact that only a small quantity of narcotics is involved. If only leaves were involved I would probably have convicted and discharged you without penalty. Because it would have been clear given the quantity of drugs involved that it was for personal consumption only and because the quantity involved as I said was small. But I cannot do that and the reason is this that the charge says you not only bought leaves of marijuana but also seeds and the court cannot overlook the fact that you purchased seeds because that indicates you intended to do something else other than just to smoke marijuana.

Considering all these matters then in respect of that charge you will be convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to one (1) month additional time in prison, that is additional to the other charge because it is a different matter. That month will also be directed to be served at the Olomanu Juvenile Facility.

JUSTICE NELSON