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

Police v Teevao [2012] WSSC 64 (9 July 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Teevao [2012] WSSC 64

Case name: Police v Teevao

Citation: [2012] WSSC 64

Decision date: 09 July 2012

Parties:

POLICE v FELISE TEEVAO male of Lealalii Faleasiu and Salepoua’e Saleimoa

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:
Police v Ailepata [2011] WSSC 60

Police v P [2009] WSSC 16

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Informant

AND:

FELISE TEEVAO male of Lealalii Faleasiu and Salepoua’e Saleimoa.

Defendant

Counsel: Ms F E Niumata for prosecution

Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 09 July 2012

SENTENCE

The defendant in this matter is a single 42 year old male and at the relevant time he lived at their familys house at Saleimoa. Like many persons of his age he supported the family on the family plantation of taro and bananas. He is the uncle of the female complainant who is the daughter of his sister. She too was living at the family home when this offending occurred. She was at that time 14 years of age. A suppression order has already been issued in respect of her details and I am sure I do not need to remind the media that suppression order continues.

According to the summary of facts from the police which the defendant admitted to this morning there are 10 counts of rape and five of indecent assault. This matter began in November 2011 on an afternoon when the complainant was home alone with the defendant. The summary says she was sitting on her bed doing her homework. The complainants victims impact report states the defendant was the family member responsible for supervising the children of the family when they came home from school. As the complainant was sitting on the bed the defendant came and sat next to her. The defendant ordered her to lie down but the girl refused. The defendant then forcefully laid her down undressed her and digitally penetrated her private part with his fingers. This caused the girl pain and she screamed but the defendant covered up her mouth and threatened to beat her if she continued to scream. The complainant accordingly obeyed and allowed the defendant to continue with what he was doing. After a while the defendant stopped and left for the plantation. This incident leads to the first count of indecent assault against the defendant.

The second count arises out of another incident in the same month of November 2011. It occurred the day after the first incident. The summary relates that the complainant and ayoung sibling stayed home from school to assist their mother with some chores. After chores the complainants mother left the house to visit a sick relative leaving the complainant and her younger sibling alone with the defendant. During the afternoon the defendant again indecently assaulted the complainant by digitally penetrating her private part with his fingers. Despite the complainant asking him to stop he continued with his actions. He only stopped when the complainants younger sibling walked into the kitchen to get a drink of water. That incident has led to the second count of indecent assault against the defendant.

The following month December 2011 the defendants actions escalated from indecent assault to rape. On a day during the month of December the complainants relatives were outside working in the yard while the complainant went into her room to change her clothes. As she was doing so the defendant entered the room when she was naked. The summary says the defendant forced her onto the bed, lay on top of her, inserted his penis into her private part and had sexual intercourse with her. The defendants actions however were interrupted by the complainants fathers vehicle arriving home causing the defendant to immediately get off the complainant and leave the room. The complainant struggled to put on her clothes and during the process discovered that blood was coming from her private part. She said in her victim impact report that was the day she lost her virginity.

The summary goes on to relate that on another day in the same month of December 2011 sometime after Christmas the defendant repeated his actions on this young girl digitally penetrating her private part with his fingers before having full sexual intercourse with her without her consent. This time the intercourse went the full distance and the defendant only stopped when he was satisfied.

A similar incident occurred the following month of January 2012 again while the complainant was home alone with the defendant. This incident involved the defendant sucking the complainants breasts, digitally penetrating her vagina before having full sexual intercourse with her again without her consent.

The summary goes on to relate that on three other occasions in January 2012 the defendant again had forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant at their home at Saleimoa. On those occasions she was either home alone or she was home with her younger siblings and the defendant.

The sexual assaults continued in the month of February 2012 when the defendant while the complainant was asleep digitally penetrated her private part with his fingers. This behaviour continued on into the month of March 2012 where it is alleged that the defendant on four separate occasions without the consent of the complainant at their home at Saleimoa also raped her either in the kitchen or in the bedroom.

As a result of the defendants actions the complainant has become pregnant. That pregnancy is what brought all these matters to light. Because it appeared that no one in the family knew what was going on until that stage. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the 10 counts of rape and the 5 counts of indecent assault against him.

In the documents before me he has attempted to blame his behaviour on alcohol but this is soundly rejected by the court. Self induced intoxication is never an excuse for any behaviour. This is quite a horrific tale of sexual abuse committed by a mature man on a 14 year old girl.

The facts that I have related indicate that the defendant as a sexual predator preyed on his niece for his own sexual purposes. He would wait for her to be alone or be alone with younger siblings who could not do anything to rescue the girl and then commit his acts of sexual assault. On some days the sexual assault was an indecent assault, on other days it was indecent assault accompanied by acts of rape. All these acts would take place within the confines of the family home where young girls should be protected not violated by older siblings responsible for their care. These acts began in November 2011 and continued on a monthly basis through to March 2012. This must have been for this 14 year old four months of terror. And it got to a point as related to the probation office by the defendant himself that when he approached the young girl for sexual purposes she would voluntarily get naked and just let him do as he pleased. She was completely under his power. And the defendant would use that to satisfy his sexual urges.

The girls ordeal did not stop there. Her victim impact report says that when it was discovered she was pregnant her relatives did not believe that the defendant was responsible. She was beaten by her aunty and criticized by her relatives for her behaviour. It obviously took some time for the family to accept what she was telling them that it was her uncle who was responsible. The complainant has since left this unhappy family environment and according to the documents before me is now under the care of the Samoa Victim Support. She hopes to adopt out her baby when she gives birth and understandably she does not want to ever see the defendants face again.

The maximum penalty for each count of rape is life imprisonment. For indecent assault on a girl under 16 years of age it is 7 years maximum penalty. Care givers who sexually assault and prey on young girls under their care can expect no other punishment but imprisonment. As stated by this court in Police v Ailepata [2011] WSSC 60:

“In many cases the offence of rape is an offence of power and control. This defendant used his power as an older mature male over a young girl of his family who was at the time of these offences alone and under his protection and care. He used her as his sex slave to satisfy his personal lust. This is abhorrent behaviour.... The penalty must reflect societys condemnation of such actions and must also serve as a deterrent to other like minded matured men who prey on young girls for their perverse satisfaction.”

Police v Ailepata involved a 59 year old uncle who on numerous occasions raped his 9 year old niece. The penalty that was handed down in that case was 20 years in prison. In Police v P [2009] WSSC 16 a case that involved multiple rape of a 15 year old girl over a period of time, the learned Chief Justice imposed a sentence of 16 years imprisonment. There are many other like cases unfortunately that have come before this court. But the court will continue to impose stern sentences so that the message that goes out to care-givers in particular mature males who sexually assault young females under their protection that such behaviour is intolerable. It will not be accepted by society and will be dealt with firmly and without mercy.

Considering all the circumstances of your matter and applying the totality of sentence approach the 20 year start point of Police v P is in my view appropriate. But there are mitigating factors that must be taken into account in your favour. The prosecution have submitted a previous conviction for you but that is a very old conviction and it was for a different kind of offence. I will therefore disregard it and treat you as a first offender. It is also in your favour that you have pleaded guilty and saved the courts time and the necessity for the complainant to be subjected to the further ordeal of a public trial. I also take into account the apology by you to the complainants mother and parents as confirmed by the complainant herself in her victim impact report. As well I take into account the petition put before the court by your mother this morning. For all those factors I make a blanket deduction of 5 years from the initial start point.

On the charges of rape you will be convicted and sentenced for all charges to 15 years in prison. On the charges of indecent assault you will be convicted and sentenced on each charge to 2 years in prison but those terms are to be served concurrent with your term for rape. The time the defendant has spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from his prison sentence.

JUSTICE NELSON