SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Kelemete [2014] WSSC 10

Case name:  Police v Kelemete
Citation: [2014] WSSC 10  
Decision date: 17 February 2014
Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and SAMUELU KELEMETE male of Vaoala and Saleilua Falealili
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s):  S4/14
Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL
Place of delivery: MULINUU
Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S4/14

BETWEEN

P   O   L   I   C   E
Prosecution

A  N  D

SAMUELU KELEMETE male of Vaoala and Saleilua Falealili.
Accused

Counsel:	O Tagaloa for prosecution
		Accused in person
Sentence:	17 February 2014

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E

1.	The accused appears for sentence on the charge of causing intentional damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.  To the charge he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2.	According to the prosecution’s summary of facts, around 6pm on Saturday 21 December 2012, the accused, Samuelu Kelemete, was walking along the road at Vaoala where the chapel of the Church of Latter Saints is located.  He was carrying a bottle of vodka and was under the influence of alcohol.  He was making a lot of noise.  As he neared the chapel, he started calling out in a provocative  manner to the youths who were playing games on the basketball court next to the chapel “Sole e ke fia ulavale?”.  No one responded and the accused continued walking along the road.
3.	Later that same evening after the youths finished their games on the basketball court, the accused entered the Church of the Latter Day Saints compound to get some water to mix his vodka.  But instead of getting water to mix his vodka, the accused began throwing stones at the security lights and the windows of the compound.  Nine security lights were broken and forty louvers were cracked.  The estimated value of the damage was $3,521.00. 
4.	According to the pre-sentence report, the accused told the probation service that on the evening in question he was drinking a two litre bottle of Russian vodka all by himself.  He then took a stroll along the road to get some fresh air.  When he came to the compound of the Church of Latter Day Saints he entered and drank from the fountain inside the compound.  As he walked back towards the road, all of a sudden thoughts of some members of the Latter Day Saints Church being unkind to him when he plays at their basketball court came to his mind.  So he picked up gravel and threw them at the security lights.
5.	The accused is 25 years old.  He has divorced his wife.  Since this incident, his employment with the Catholic Church as a groundsman has been terminated.  He is a first offender and the testimonials from his aunty with whom he stays at Vaoala and the pastor of his church at Vaoala show that he is a decent person.  He has also pleaded guilty to the charge against him at the earliest opportunity.
6.	There are several aggravating features of this offending.  The first is that this was really an unprovoked attack on the properties of the Latter Day Saints Church.  Secondly, a number of stones must have been thrown by the accused given the extent of the damage to the properties of the Church.  Thirdly, the extent of the damage itself which consisted of nine broken security lights and forty cracked louvers.  Fourthly, the extent of the damage reflects a high level of deliberateness in the accused’s actions.  And, fifthly the value of the damage which was estimated at $3,521.00.  There is no mitigating feature relating to the offending.  
7.	There are also mitigating features personal to the offender.  These are his relatively young age, the fact that he is a first offender and had been a relatively decent person prior to this offending, and his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
8.	Having regard to the aggravating features of the offending, I will take 6 months as the starting point for sentence.  I will then deduct 2 months for the relative youth and previous good character of the accused and that leaves 4 months.  I will deduct 1/3 for the early guilty plea and that leaves about 3 months.
9.	The accused is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.  Any time the accused has spent in custody pending the outcome of his case is to be further deducted from that sentence.
10.	I wish to note that up to now this Court has been imposing non - custodial sentences for causing intentional damage to property where the offender is a first offender and has pleaded guilty to the charge.  However, the Court has become very concerned about the high rate of this type of offending and therefore the need for deterrence.  As this will be the first case that a custodial sentence has been imposed by this Court on an offender who caused intentional damages to property, I have taken six months as starting point for sentence so as not to make too sudden a change to the Court’s sentencing policy for this type of offending.   The starting point for sentence may be higher in the future.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia for prosecution