SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Leopope [2012] WSSC 65

Case name: Police v Leopope 
Citation: [2012] WSSC 65
Decision date: 25 June 2012
Parties: 
POLICE v ISITOLO aka LASI LEOPOPE  male of Vaitoloa
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction:  Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Nelson J
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

ISITOLO aka LASI LEOPOPE  male of Vaitoloa.
Defendant

Counsel:  Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:  25 June 201
SENTENCE

This is another case of grievous bodily harm.   In this case the defendant is 25 years of age, married and currently employed at a bakery in the town area.  The victim is a 50 year old male and at the time of the offending the defendant and victim were working at the same bakery. 
In the early morning of 18 May 2012 the employer of the two men visited the bakery and accused the defendant of sleeping during working hours and other matters.  Matters which the defendant says were not true.  But because the defendant was the shift supervisor he bore the brunt of the criticisms from his employer.  The employer also named the complainant or the victim in this matter as the “snitch”.  When the employer left and later on in the day the defendant confronted the victim about this matter.  The victim did not pay any attention to the defendants complaints and this obviously caused the defendant to lose self control.  And to assault the complainant by punching him twice in the mouth.  This caused the complainant to lose a few teeth and require hospital treatment.  
To date nothing further has been heard from the complainant who the police say has been very hard to locate for the purpose of a victim impact report.  This is probably because the complainant got his revenge upon the defendant when he told the defendant to meet him at the back of the radio 2AP office to discuss settlement of the matter.  When the defendant arrived he was ambushed by the complainant and two friends who proceeded to assault the defendant.  The defendant became the victim and has laid a police complaint against the complainant.  Who has now become a defendant potentially.  
The defendants background indicates he is still working at the bakery.  He lives with a defacto spouse, he has two children that he supports together with parents and other siblings.  He has in his plea in mitigation asked the court for another chance for their sake as he is the family bread winner.  This has been confirmed and supported by a reference from his employer who speaks highly of the defendant and his diligent service.  
Considering all the factors and its circumstances Isitolo I am of the view an imprisonment sentence is not required for your case.  But I give you this very strong warning.  Aua e te toe faia ni mea tama leaga faapea Isitolo aua e leai se lumanai.  O lea ua e oo mai i le faamasinoga ona o lou faaoolima i le tamaloa lea. O lea ua tuu atu le avanoa ia oe.  O le a le falepuipui lau susuga i le asō, lea o le a faasala tupe lau mataupu.  Ae a toe aumai oe i se mataupu faapea savalivali mai ma uu mai lou fala ma lou aluga.  Ua e malamalama? (defendant indicated he understood).  
The defendant in this matter will be convicted and ordered to pay the following sums of money: firstly a fine of $200, secondly police costs of $50 and probation office costs of $50, total sum of $300 is to be payable by 12 noon Friday 29 June, in default he will serve 3 months in prison.  

JUSTICE NELSON