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

Police v Amituanai [2011] WSSC 151 (17 October 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

VALAULU aka LAULU ALOSIO AMITUANAI
male of Letogo and Vaoala.
Defendant

Counsel: Ms L Su'a-Mailo for prosecution
Mr S Leung Wai for defendant

Sentence: 17 October 2011

SENTENCE

Valaulu has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The police summary of facts as amended which the defendant through his counsel has accepted states that he is a 26 year old male of Letogo and Vaoala. And that the deceased in this matter is a 28 year old male of Alafua, Siusega and Vaoala.

The summary states that on Monday 25 April this year, the deceased was returning from a picnic and stopped off at Mynas store at Vaoala to purchase some items. The deceased at the time was intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. He saw the defendant standing by the entrance to the store. The defendant was also at the store to purchase goods and was standing by the door waiting for his phone credit transfer to be actioned. There is no evidence that he was at all intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol but it is clear that the two men were not acquainted. Notwithstanding that the deceased twice asked the defendant in terms that can be interpreted as an instruction rather than a request to come and do his shopping for him. The defendant in his interview with the Probation Office told them that the deceased called out to him "sole sau e fai mai la'u faatau." The deceased was in a vehicle at the time with some friends. The defendant approached them and the deceased handed over money for the shopping to the defendant. Something must then have happened because the defendant said that the deceased snatched back the money, pushed him away and called out to another bystander at the shop to come and do his shopping. One of the employees of the store heard the conversation came and attended to the deceaseds request.

The summary continues that after this was done the deceased left the store and proceeded home. But the defendant was angered by the deceaseds attitude towards him and he went after the deceased. At that time one of the defendants friends exited the store, saw what was happening and called out to the defendant to stop. Had the defendant listened and left the drunken man alone he probably would not be sitting in the dock today. But he did not and instead he approached the deceased, grabbed his right hand and punched him in the left jaw. The deceased fell, hit his head on the cement driveway and the deceaseds head started to bleed.

People who were at the scene came and rendered assistance and the deceased was placed on a truck and taken to the hospital for medical attention. Upon arrival at the hospital however treatment was unsuccessful and the deceased was declared dead not long after admission. Later that day the defendant was apprehended by the police, cautioned at the police station and interviewed: During the interview he admitted to punching the deceased as he was angered by the deceased asking him to do his shopping when they were strangers to each other.

For the purpose of a Coroners Ruling as to the death of the deceased in this matter, I find that the deceased Faaesea Vagana Opetaia Liu, a male of Vaoala and Siusega, died at the National Hospital on 25 April 2011. The cause of death being subgaleal hemorrhage or bleeding inside the brain due to blunt force trauma sustained to his head. I further find that the injury that caused the deceaseds death was a result of the blow administered to the deceaseds jaw by the defendant.

Looking at the facts of this matter, it is an unfortunate case where a life has been lost needlessly. The defendant is a young man from a good background. He has good character references attached to his pre-sentence probation report and has a clean record. As his counsel pointed out it is also in his favour that he pleaded guilty when the charge against him was finalized and he is remorseful and regretful of his actions. The report confirms that an ifoga in accordance with our "tu and aganuu faasamoa" has been carried out and fully accepted by the family of the deceased who have forgiven the defendant for his actions. I also apparent that council of the defendants village has fined the defendants family for this matter and the family have paid that fine. I also accept counsels submission that an element of provocation exist by virtue of the drunken deceaseds behaviour. I bear in mind that no weapon was used in this assault and only one punch was delivered by the defendant. There was also no premeditation involved, this was a spur of the moment lapse of judgment on the defendants part.

All those factors are in your favour defendant. But the court cannot overlook that the offence of manslaughter is serious. That is why it carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. As was stated by Chief Justice Sapolu in Police v Matalavea [2006] WSSC 30;

"The loss of a human life is a serious matter and that is why manslaughter is always a serious crime."

And the court must be careful that it never loses sight of the gravity of the crime of manslaughter. Prosecution have submitted that a penalty of imprisonment is appropriate for this matter and I agree. But the penalty should reflect all the factors in the matter including those in your favour.

For this matter you will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison.

............................
JUSTICE NELSON