SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Iona [2012] WSSC 69

Case name: Police v Iona
Citation: [2012] WSSC 69
Decision date: 25 June 2012
Parties: 
POLICE v MATEO IONA  male of Falefa, Vaitele-uta and Avao
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:

MATEO IONA male of Falefa, Vaitele-uta and Avao.
Defendant

Counsel:  Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 25 June 2012

SENTENCE

 This defendant is for sentence on four charges of indecent assault and one charge of armed with a dangerous weapon.  He is a 59 year old single male and the complainant is his 11 year old niece.  She is the daughter of his sister and both lived at the same village in the Vaitele area but the defendant was originally from Savaii.  
The first charge is S1143/12 which is in relation to an incident that occurred on the 27th of April 2012.  At about 3:00pm that day the complainant was walking to the village shop when she met the defendant.  He told her to come to his sisters house for a “feau” (errand) for the sister and he took her to an abandoned house nearby.  He was in possession of a sapelu at the time.  The defendant led the girl into an empty room in the house and then called his sister on his cell phone and told her that the complainant did not want to come to her house because she was afraid of the dogs.  The defendant instructed the complainant to sit down and not to make any noise otherwise he would kill her.  He sat down next to he and put the knife down by his side.  He removed his ie and got the complainant to sit on him and rubbed his penis against his vagina.  He tried to penetrate the complainant but the complainant complained that it hurt.  The defendant laid her down began kissing her body and performed oral sex on her private part.  When he was finished he told her to get dressed and not to mention this to anyone.  The young girl told no one.  
The second charge is S1145/12 in relation to an incident that occurred on the 14th of May 2012.  At about 4:00pm that day the complainant went again to the same village store and met the defendant.  He tried to lure her to go with him to another house of the family but this time she refused.  However as she returned from the store the defendant sprang out from the road side where he had been hiding and pulled her into the bushes.  She tried to scream but he covered her mouth with his hand.  The police summary again indicates he was in possession of a sapelu.  It says he laid the complainant on the ground undressed her and began thrusting his penis into her private part.  He also digitally penetrated her private part.  When he was satisfied he instructed the complainant to go home.  Again the complainant stayed silent about the incident.  
The third charge in this matter is S1144/12 in relation to 17 May 2012 some three days later.  At about 1:00pm of that day the complainant and her young brother again were on the way to the store.  Where the younger brother told the complainant let us go to the defendant and get some money.  This lends some credence to what the defendant told the probation office that after the incidents with the complainant, he gave her money to buy her silence.  The two children then went to the abandoned house where the defendant seems to have been staying, the scene of the first incident.  They entered the bedroom with the defendant.  The defendant according to the summary told the brother to leave but he refused.  The boys presence did not deter the defendant who then proceeded to fondle the complainants private part while the young boy was still in the room.  At some stage the boy left the room whereupon the defendant proceeded further with his activity and rubbed his penis over the complainants vagina.  The brother returned to the room to find the defendant by that time was on top of the complainant.  The defendant made the boy wait while he completed his actions and then the two young children were sent by him out of the room and they went home.  Again the complainant told no one.  It appears her younger brother also stayed silent about the incident.  
The fourth and final incident occurred on the 21st May about a week later.  At about 3:00 pm that day the complainant went to the defendants abandoned house on an errand for her mother.  Again once the complainant was inside the house the defendant pushed her onto the floor, undressed her and fondled her private part.  The defendant removed his ie and at that stage allowed the complainant a chance to escape which she took.  She was chased by the defendant who was holding a sapelu.  She ran to a neighbours house and took refuge there.  The matter was reported to the police and all the incidents then came to light.  This defendant is probably fortunate that he is not facing the more serious charge of attempted rape but only four counts of indecent assault and one count of armed with a dangerous weapon.  
The maximum penalty for indecently assaulting a girl under 12 years of age is 7 years in prison.  The police summary which the defendant has admitted says she was 11 years of age at the relevant time.  The other charge of armed with a dangerous weapon carries a 1 year maximum imprisonment penalty.  
There is no question the circumstances of this offending call for an imprisonment  penalty on this uncle who treated his niece as some kind of sexual puppet for his own enjoyment.  The girl was 11 years old and her victim impact report details the impact this offending has had on her.  The defendant as an uncle used to regularly visit her house to watch TV and she always treated him as an uncle and would do the normal things a niece would do for an uncle like fetching his tea and making him welcome in their house.  She trusted him and that trust has been grossly betrayed.  The girl may never again trust another uncle.  She was also obviously frightened by his threats thus her silence about what was being done to her.  It is also degrading that he sexually assaulted her in front of her younger brother, behaviour that borders on perverse.  
When given an opportunity this morning by the court to say something in mitigation he made no apology for his conduct, expressed no remorse for his offending and all he did was point out to the court that he lives alone and renders tautua to his aiga.  How he thinks that excuses his behaviour is incomprehensible.  He is a 59 year old man who sexually abused an 11 year old girl.  There is an age difference of 48 years between him and the girl.  
Because of the epidemic of sexual offending that currently grips this country the court in recent times has imposed stern sentences on sexual offenders like this man emphasizing deterrence as its primary aim.  The defendant and those who may think like him must clearly understand that such behaviour is not tolerated by the society that we live in today or by the law.  
There is little in your favour except the fact that you have pleaded guilty and spared the necessity of a trial.  More importantly it has spared the necessity for the young girl to come and relive her ordeal.  Were it not for your guilty you would be serving a longer term of imprisonment than what the court is about to impose.  It is also in your favour that you are a first offender at the age of 59 years.  
Considering all the factors of this case and having regard to sentences in similar cases you are convicted and sentenced in respect of each indecent assault charge to a term of imprisonment of 3 years but all terms are to be served concurrent.
In respect of the armed with a dangerous weapon charge, this is a serious example of this kind of offending because the weapon was used to reinforce the defendants threats on a young girl.  For that charge you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison.  That is cumulative to your term for the indecent assault matter.  The defendants time spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted.  

JUSTICE NELSON