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

Police v Pisa [2013] WSSC 96 (15 July 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Pisa [2013] WSSC 96

Case name: Police v Pisa

Citation: [2013] WSSC 96

Decision date: 15 July 2013
Parties:
POLICE v APULU PISA, male of Sapulu Faleasiu.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
F E Niumata for prosecution

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:

APULU PISA, male of Sapulu Faleasiu.
Defendant

Counsel: F E Niumata for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 15 July 2013

SENTENCE

Defendant appears for sentence on a charge of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm. A charge which under the new Crimes Act 2013 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. He is also appearing for sentence on a charge of armed with a dangerous weapon namely a bush knife under the Police Offences Ordinance section 25 one year maximum penalty.

Defendant has pleaded guilty to both charges. He is a 54 year old matai of Faleasiu married with three children. He is like most Samoan men the bread winner for his immediate and extended family. There is no question imprisonment affects them even though they have done nothing.

The complainant is a friend of the defendant. He is 40 years of age of the same village as the defendant. The incident in this case arises out of a misunderstanding involving these two men and the sale of the defendants pick-up.

The documents before me indicate that what happened is the complainant had given a potential buyer of the pick-up some information about the vehicle. Information which the defendant did not want the potential buyer to know about. This angered the defendant and he confronted the complainant. The confrontation led to him backhanding the complainant in the face and then getting a machete and scalping him. This was confirmed to the court by the complainant in his testimony and also by the testimony of an eye witness who saw what happened.

As the result of the assault the complainant had to be taken to hospital for treatment. Because the defendants actions caused the scalp of the complainant to be cut skin had to be grafted from his foot to patch up the scalp. This was done by a surgical operation and it required the complainant to stay in hospital for two weeks to recover.

It is clear from what is before me that the matter has now been resolved between the two men. And the defendants apology has been accepted by the complainant. The defendant has also given money to the complainant to cover his medical costs. These things have been confirmed by the complainant to the probation office and by Fesola’i a matai of the complainants family to the court at the last calling of this matter.

The defendant is obviously sorry for what he did to his friend. He reiterated his apology to his friend in open court. I have no doubt that his remorse is genuine. But the defendant lost his self control and resorted to the use of a ‘sapelu’. That caused grievous bodily injury to the complainant. That is a breach of the law and the court cannot let that go unpunished.

Previous cases where defendants have resorted to weapons to cause serious injuries have consistently led to jail terms. To show that such conduct is not acceptable especially if defendants resort to violence and use of weapons. A deterrent message must be sent for the future to the defendant himself and to others who should think twice before reacting like this.

Having said all that it is also the law that in mitigation of penalty the court must take into account things like your apology to the complainant and your guilty plea which has saved a lot of court time. For which you will receive full credit because your challenge to the police summary of facts was successful. I also take into account your pervious good record of service to the family, to your village, to your church and the fact that you are a first offender. The penalty that you should receive all circumstances considered would be a jail term of 2 years in prison. But because of these mitigating factors in your favour Apulu I will reduce that in half.

Accordingly for the offence of grievous bodily harm you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. For the charge of armed with a dangerous weapon you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months in prison but that term is to be served concurrent to your other term. It is also ordered that the time you have spent in custody awaiting sentence is to be deducted from your prison term.

.........................
JUSTICE NELSON