SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sini [2013] WSSC 80

Case name:  Police v Sini
Citation: [2013] WSSC 80
Decision date: 1 October 2013
Parties: 
POLICE (prosecution) and TAULA FULAAU SINI male of Lalomanu (accused)
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s):  S1495/13, S1494/13
Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL
Place of delivery: MULINUU
Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
L Su’a and O Tagaloa
S Wulf for accused
Catchwords: 
Sentence, 
Words and phrases:
causing actual bodily harm with intent, intentional damage to property, aggravating and mitigating features, 
Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013   
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU’U
FILE NOs: S1495/13, S1494/13

BETWEEN

P  O   L   I   C   E
Prosecution

A  N  D:

TAULA FUALAAU SINI male of Lalomanu.
Accused

Counsel:	L Su’a and O Tagaloa for prosecution
		S Wulf for accused

Sentence:	1 October 2013

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
The charges
1.	The accused appears for sentence on two charges, namely, 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, and intentional damage to property, contrary to s.184(2) (a) of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.  To both charges the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending against the first complainant
2.	The accused is a 47 year old matai of Lalomanu.  The first complainant is a 34 year old male of the same village.  On Tuesday right 11 June 2013 the first complainant and his brother were drinking with the accused at Lalomanu.  The first complainant’s brother left at about midnight.  The first complainant and the accused kept on drinking.  They did not finish until about 3:00am in the morning.  Both men were then very drunk.
3.	As the accused had to walk past the first complainant’s house to go home, he called the first complainant to accompany him in case he gets bitten by the first complainant’s dogs.  As the first complainant came to the accused, the accused slapped him and the first complainant fell down.  It must have been a powerful slap notwithstanding that both men were very drunk.  The accused denies what is said in the prosecution’s summary of facts that he threw a rock at the first complainant causing him to fall down. After hearing the medical evidence, I decided to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and accepted what he said. 
4.	The first complainant was taken to the Lalomanu district hospital the same night for treatment.  The cut above his ear required three stitches.  He was also given antibiotics and painkillers and was discharged the same morning.
The offending against the second complainant 
5.	The second complainant is a taxidriver.  On the night in question, he took a passenger to Lalomanu.  It was around 8:00pm when he dropped off his passenger at Lalomanu.  He was too tired to drive back to Apia by himself at that time of the night.  So he asked the first complainant if he could park his taxi in front of his house so that he may have a rest before returning to Apia.  The first complainant allowed the second complainant to do so.  The second complainant then slept inside his taxi except for the time he went inside the first complainant’s house to have something to eat.
6.	At the time the accused said he slapped the first complainant after their drinking session, he also grabbed a chair that was in front of the first complainant’s house and threw it at the second complainant’s taxi.  According to the summary of facts, this caused extensive damage to the taxi.  The front windshield was cracked; the wipers were damaged; the right and left windshields at the front seats were shattered into pieces; the right back door was scratched; so was the roof of the same door.  The estimated total cost of the damage is $4,000.  The accused has paid partial reparation of $2,400.
7.	The full impact of the damage to the second complainant’s taxi is set out in detail in the victim impact report on the second complainant.  I need not set it out here but the damage has significant consequences for the second complainant.
The accused
8.	The accused is well educated man and is an ex-teacher.  He now runs a beach fale business.  He also has a plantation and a cattle farm.  He has good character testimonials from the pastor of his village and the Member of Parliament of his district.  However, he was convicted and discharged of theft in 2012 as it appears from the pre-sentence report.
9.	After this incident, the accused apologised to the first complainant and his family.  The apology was accepted and there has been a reconciliation.  The first complainant has forgiven the accused and has written to the probation service to withdraw the charges in which his name is mentioned.  He and the accused are now good friends again.  The accused has also been fined $500 by the council of his village.  As already mentioned, he has also paid partial reparation of $2,500 to the second complainant. 
The aggravating and mitigating features
10.	The aggravating features of this offending are: (a) the assault on the first complainant which was totally unprovoked but due to the accused’s drunken condition, (b) the injury caused to the first complainant, (c) the impact of the offending on the first complainant, (d) the extensive damage caused to the second complainant’s taxi which was also totally unprovoked but due to the accused’s drunken condition, and (e) the impact of the offending on the second complainant.  There is no mitigating feature of the offending.
11.	Even though the accused was convicted and discharged of theft in 2012, I would not treat that as an aggravating feature relating to the accused as offender.  There are mitigating features personal to the accused.  These are: (a) the apology by the accused to the first complainant and his family which was accepted so that there has been a reconciliation and the first complainant has forgiven the accused and they are now good friends again, (b) the accused has already been penalised by the village council, (c) the accused has also paid partial reparation to the second complainant for the damage to his taxi; and (d) the accused’s plea of guilty to both charges against him at the earliest opportunity. 
Result 
12.	After consideration of the aggravating features relating to the offending and the mitigating features personal to the accused, I have decided to impose the following sentence:
(a)	For the charge of actual bodily harm with intent, the accused is convicted and fined $250.
(b)	For the charge of intentional damage to property, the accused is convicted and fined $750.
(c)	Both fines are to be paid in 7 days in default 6 months imprisonment. 

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney-General’s Office, Apia for prosecution 
Meredith Law Office for accused