SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA 
Police v Taumaoe [2013] WSSC 30

Case name: Police v Taumaoe
Citation: [2013] WSSC 30
Decision date: 25 March 2013
Parties: POLICE and PAULO ATONIO TAUMAOE, male of Alafua and Tuanaimato.
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Justice Nelson
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
Prosecution

AND

PAULO ATONIO TAUMAOE, male of Alafua and Tuanaimato.
Defendant

Counsel:    Ms L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented 

Sentence:    25 March 2013

SENTENCE

The police summary of facts which this defendant admits states that he is a 46 year old male of Alafua and Tuanaimato married with 10 children.  The complainant a 14 year old female.  Suppression order already issued in relation to publication of her details is to continue including her place of residence.  She is a step-daughter to the defendant.  
The summary relates that on four occasions the defendant had sexual intercourse with the complainant in the family home while the defendant was home alone with her.  The details of these incidents are recorded in information S181/13 incident occurring on 23 October 2011, S182/13 an incident occurring on 12 October 2011, 183/13 incident occurring on 17 October 2011 and S184/13 incident occurring between 23 October 2011 and 01 January 2012.  
This offending came to light when the complainant unexpectedly turned up at her paternal grandmothers home.  Her unexpected visit caused her grandmother to become suspicious that something had happened and eventually the complainant revealed to her the incidents that had occurred between her and the defendant.  The matter was reported to the police and the defendant was apprehended and interviewed by the police.  The police record of the interview records that he said to them “e leai sa’u faamatalaga e faia ae oute faapea atu o a’u oute alofa ia Emma ona sa ou tigaina e tausi, ae pau a ua ou sese foi i lena taimi.”  
The defendant has as a result been charged with and pleaded guilty to four counts of having sex with his stepdaughter who at the time was under 21 years of age and living with him as a member of his family.    The consent of a girl involved in such charges is not a defence to such charges as a matter of law.  The defendant has apologized to the court for what he did.  But perhaps the real person he should be apologizing to is not me but his adopted daughter.  I do accept that reflects remorsefulness on his part for his actions.  He has also asked that a penalty other than imprisonment be imposed.  Because he is concerned at the effects of imprisonment on his family in particular his children.  
It is regretful that imprisonment always affects the innocent children of an offender.  And that they become the unfortunate debris of an offenders criminal action.  But having children is not a reason to suspend a term of imprisonment if that is considered appropriate and necessary for any particular case.  The offence of having intercourse with a step-daughter is a serious charge hence the 7 year maximum imprisonment penalty.  And unfortunately in our country it is too common for older mature males to take advantage of young females under their care and protection.  This is why such cases are usually met by penalties of imprisonment from the court.  Such a punishment is aimed at deterring not only the defendant personally from repeating this kind of behaviour but also to deter other people out there that may be thinking that the courts will treat sexual abuse of younger females under their care lightly.  
The aggravating factors in this case are adequately summarized in the prosecution memorandum. The betrayal of trust because the defendant is the complainants step-father and  the significant age difference of over 30 years between the defendant and the complainant.  An age difference that no doubt he took advantage of.  The multiple nature of the offending because there is not one charge but four counts against the defendant involving different times.  
An appropriate start point for penalty is 5 years in prison.  I will deduct from that a one-third term to reflect your guilty plea which has saved the complainant coming to court and the court having to waste time on a trial.  That is a deduction of 20 months from the initial start point of 60 month leaves a balance of 40 months.  In recognition of your personal circumstances and the fact that you have a clean record and are a first offender I will make a further deduction of 12 months from that balance leaving 28 months.  No other deductions or adjustments needs to be made to your penalty for this matter.  For these offences on each charge you will be convicted and sentenced to 28 months in prison but terms are to be served concurrently.  

.……………………
JUSTICE NELSON