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

Police v Faamati [2013] WSSC 81 (2 October 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Faamati [2013] WSSC 81

Case name: Police v Faamati

Citation: [2013] WSSC 81

Decision date: 2 October 2013

Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and JOE FAAMATI male of Tufulele (accused)

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1512/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
F Lagaaia and O Tagaloa
Accused in person

Catchwords:
Sentence,

Words and phrases:
Intentional damage to property, throwing stones, aggravating and mitigating features
Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013
Police Offences Ordinance 1961

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1512/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

JOE FAAMATI male of Tufulele.

Accused

Counsel: F Lagaaia and O Tagaloa for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 2 October 2013

S E N T E N C E

The charges

1. The accused appears for sentence on the charges of intentional damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, and of throwing stones, contrary to s.26 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment. To the charges the accused has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

2. The complainant is a 30 year old taxidriver. The accused is a 22 year old male. They are from the same village of Tufulele.
3. On Saturday evening 22 June 2013 at around 7:00pm, the complainant’s taxi and another taxi were travelling at high speed along the road at Tufulele. The complainant’s taxi almost hit the youths who were sitting at the side of the road with the accused waiting for the village curfew to end. The matais of the village who were policing the curfew called out to the accused and the youths to stop the victim’s taxi. As that was physically impossible, the accused and one of the youths threw stones at the complainant’s taxi to make it stop. The stones hit the rear back window of the complainant’s taxi and shattered it into pieces. The taxi sign on top of the taxi was also damaged beyond repair. But all that damage did not stop complainant’s taxi. The estimated value of the damage is about $5,000.
4. In the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service that he and other youths from his village had been watching rugby at another village of their district until 6:00pm. When they returned to their village the village curfew was already in force. So they could not enter their homes until after the curfew. They then sat on the side of the road to await the end of the curfew. All of a sudden, two taxis raced down the road at high speed. One of the taxis was driven by the complainant. The matais who were policing the curfew called out to the youths and the accused to stop the taxi driven by the complainant. The accused tried to stop the taxi but it would not stop. So he threw a stone at the taxi to make it stop. The taxi still did not stop. It is clear that the accused’s actions were not pre-meditated but a responsive reaction to the call from the curfew matais.

The accused

5. The accused is single and is employed as a baker. He is a first offender. His character testimonials from his father, the pastor of his church, and the pulenu’u of his village all show that he had been a person of good character prior to the present offending. The accused’s family have also made a formal apology to the complainant’s family and presented a large fine mat and $1,000. The apology was accepted but the fine mat and the money were returned by the matai of the victim’s family to the accused’s family.

The aggravating and mitigating features

6. The aggravating features of this offending are the value of the damage to the complainant’s taxi and the use by the accused of stones which caused that damage. The mitigating features are that he complainant is from the same village as the accused and he should have known that the evening curfew of his village was on but he still had a race down the road with another taxi. His taxi almost hit the youths who were sitting with the accused on the side of the road to await the end of the curfew. In other words, the complainant’s conduct was provocative. Such provocative conduct when it happens in a village is usually met with a stony response.
7. The mitigating features which are personal to the accused are the fact that his actions were not pre-meditated, the formal apology by the accused’s family to the complainant’s family which was accepted, the fact that the accused is a first offender and was a person of good character prior to the commission of these offences, and the accused’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Discussion

8. The complainant’s behaviour during the curfew of his village was clearly inappropriate and provocative and is not to be encouraged. However, the accused’s response was also clearly unjustified and unlawful. It was unnecessary. As a result, the complainant’s taxi was extensively damaged. Such conduct on the part of the accused is also not to be encouraged.
9. Having considered the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending, I will take 9 months as the starting point for sentence. I will deduct 3 months for the mitigating features personal to the accused. That leaves 6 months. I will give a 1/3 discount for the guilty plea. That leaves 4 months. I will show mercy on the accused and deduct one month. That leaves 3 months.

Result

10. The accused is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment on each of the charges of intentional damage to property and throwing stones. Both sentences to be concurrent so that effectively the accused will serve a sentence of 3 months imprisonment.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney-General’s Office, Apia for prosecution