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

Police v Liga [2013] WSSC 75 (24 September 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Iiga [2013] WSSC 75

Case name: Police v Pauli Iiga

Citation: [2013] WSSC 75

Decision date: 24 September 2013
Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and PAULI IIGA male of Falelauniu-tai and Vaitoloa (accused)

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): s1579/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
L Su’a for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
Actual bodily harm with intent
Severity of the assault

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013-10-02

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1579/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

PAULI IIGA male of Falelauniu-tai and Vaitoloa.

Accused

Counsel: L Su’a for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 24 September 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charge

1. The accused appears for sentence on the charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent, contrary to s. 119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. To the charge the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. On Saturday night 4 August 2013 at around 9:00pm, the victim and a friend were sitting at the three corners on the road at Falelauniu when the accused walked towards them. The victim asked the accused where he was going but there was no reply. The accused just kept on walking towards the victim and his friend. Just as the accused walked past the victim, he turned around and punched the victim on the left side of his head. The victim bowed down and covered his face with his hands. The accused kept on punching the victim on the head. When the victim’s friend tried to intervene the accused ran away.
3. The victim and his friend then went to a nearby store. On the way they met two other friends of the victim. They then returned to the three corners on the road where the accused had been sitting with one of his friends earlier on. They again met with the accused who was then accompanied by his brother in law. The accused’s brother in law went over and put his hands around the victim’s neck and strangled him. He then slapped the victim across the face. The accused followed with a metal bar and hit the victim across the right cheek. He again hit the victim on the right side of his head just above the right ear. As a result, the victim was bleeding from his head and face.
4. The said metal bar, as the accused demonstrated to the Court, was a short piece of metal from about the top of his wrist to the tip of his fingers.
5. The victim was taken to the hospital the same night where a small laceration was found on the right side of his scalp and extensive swelling was seen on his right facial bone. The laceration was sutured with four stitches and the victim was given antibiotics and painkillers. The victim was also given a scalp and face x-ray but no fracture was found. He went back home the same night.
6. According to what the accused says in his pre-sentence report, when he got home on the Sunday night this incident happened, his sister was scolding and yelling at her 13 year old daughter for flirting with the victim on a bus after church. His sister then turned to him and said “E leai sou ake kiga ga e faalogo i kala ae leai sau mea e fai i ai.” The accused says that because of what his sister said to him he went to the house of the victim which is not too far away. Unfortunately, he met the victim on the road and this incident then happened.

The victim

7. The victim is a 21 year old male. He is single and is employed as a groundsman. The victim impact report shows that as a result of the assault by the accused on the victim the latter suffered severe headaches for about two weeks and had to remain in bed the whole time. The victim was also not able to go to work for three weeks and he lost a total of $180 in wages.
8. The victim also says in the victim impact report that the accused’s family have apologised to his family and his mother and uncle accepted the apology. He, himself, has also forgiven the accused but not his father who is still angry with the accused.

The accused

9. The accused is a 20 year old male from the same village as the victim. He is currently unemployed and is married with no children.
10. In the pre-sentence report the accused says that on the day after this incident the victim admitted to him of having an affair with his niece. He and his sister have apologised to the family of the victim and the apology was accepted.
11. The accused comes from a low income family. He left school at an early stage because of his family’s financial difficulties. He is the youngest of his parents children. He is the only child of his parents who is looking after his parents as his other siblings have migrated overseas or live elsewhere in Samoa.
12. The accused is a first offender. His mother told the probation service that her son is a reliable, hardworking and trustworthy member of their family. She and her husband depend on the accused. The written testimonial from the pastor of the accused’s church shows the accused as a habitual churchgoer and is a supportive, reliable and dependable member of his church in its activities.

The aggravating and mitigating features

13. The aggravating features of this offending is the severity of the assault on the victim and the use by the accused of a metal bar to hit the victim twice. In the first assault, after the accused had punched the victim on the head and the victim bowed down and covered his face with his hands, the accused continued to punch him. Then later on after the first assault when the accused and his brother in law met up with the victim and his friends, the brother in law strangled the victim’s neck and slapped him and then the accused came up with a metal bar and hit the victim across the right cheek and then on the left side of the head. As a result, the victim sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital the same night. There is no mitigating feature of this offending.
14. In relation to the accused as offender there is no aggravating feature but there are mitigating features. The accused was provoked by what his sister said to him about her 13 year old daughter flirting with the accused on the bus after church. Perhaps the suspicious of the accused’s sister were confirmed when the victim told the accused the day after this incident that he has an affair with the accused’s niece. The accused and his sister have also apologised to the family of the victim and their apology was accepted. The accused has also apologised to the victim and the victim has forgiven the accused. The accused is also a first offender and has been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence. He is also at the relatively young age of 20 years. He has also pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity.

The decision

15. I have given much thought as to whether a custodial or non-custodial sentence should be imposed in this case given the aggravating features relating to the offending and the mitigating features personal to the accused as offender. Having carefully weighed all the relevant circumstances and bearing in mind that this matter has been settled between the two families and between the victim and the accused, I have decided to give the accused a second chance to redeem himself. He is still relatively young, he over-reacted to what his sister said to him out of immaturity and lack of foresight about the possible consequences of his actions. This case must serve as a solemn warning to him that if he commits this kind of offence again then he runs the real risk of going to prison.
16. The accused is sentenced to 15 months probation. As a special condition of his probation, he is to perform 80 hours community service as directed by the probation service.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE