IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Bourne [2014] WSSC 103

Case name: 	Police v Bourne	
		
Citation: 	[2014] WSSC 103	
		
Decision date: 	29 September 2014	
		
Parties: 	The Police (Prosecution)
Paul Bourne (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Courthouse, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison but your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa for prosecution
Unrepresented	
		
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:

	PAUL BOURNE male of Lalovaea and Luatuanuu.
Defendant

Counsel:	O Tagaloa for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:	29 September 2014

SENTENCE
	1.	The defendant appears for sentence on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to which he has pleaded guilty.  The police summary of facts filed suggests he was a bystander who got involved in a fight involving the victim and that there was no reason for him to get involved in the fight.  I doubt very much that was the case and that was what happened because no one would get involved in a fight that he has no business in.  Unless he was trying to stop it and there is no evidence Paul was trying to do that.  
	2.	I will therefore use the version of facts the defendant gave to the probation office and which is contained in the pre-sentence report because that is a far more likely scenario.  That says the defendant on the night in question was drinking at the RSA.  When it closed, he went to Pinatis to buy some food.  Because he lives at Lalovaea he caught a lift home from a couple who were also going to Lalovaea.  But the vehicle broke down on the Lalovaea hill.  It was at this stage that the victim and the victims brother-in-law came on to the scene and helped the defendant push the car to the side of the road.  
	3.	The victim it appears was also intoxicated just like the defendant.  According to what the defendant told the probation office the victim swore at him and asked for his food resulting in words being exchanged between the defendant and the victim.  The two men began fighting.  The victim punched the defendant causing him to fall down whereupon the defendant picked up an empty bottle of beer smashed it on a nearby cement wall and used it to stab the victim twice.  This caused the victim and his brother-in-law to flee the scene.  The drunken defendant continued to walk home and passed out underneath a tree on the way.  It was only the following day when the police came that the defendant fully realised what he had done.  
	4.	The assault that he carried out with the broken bottle inflicted serious injuries on the victim.  The victims medical report lists a 4 to 6 cm laceration over the right chest above the ninth rib.  The wound penetrated the muscle but fortunately for the victim did not go deep enough to penetrate the stomach.  The medical report for the victim also refers to another irregular jagged wound running from the right side of the stomach to the left side.  This wound was much larger about 40 cm in length and was 2 to 3 cm deep but again fortunately for the victim did not penetrate the underlying internal organs.  There is no doubt had these wounds been deeper the victim would have been a deceased and this may well have been a homicide.  
	5.	There is no question about the seriousness of the wounds that the defendant inflicted.  The use of weapons by drunken young men is a matter and behaviour that is far too common in our country. The courts constantly send out the message to the young men of the country that if you use this sort of weapon to inflict serious injury you can expect prison time.  There is no question that in this case such a penalty is appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the defendants offending and also because the defendant already has appeared before the court on an offence involving violent behaviour.  On that occasion he was given a chance by the court and he was dealt with by way of a monetary fine.  He did not use that chance and has re-offended this time causing a more violent injury.  His sentence today is therefore designed as a personal deterrent for him from repeating this sort of behaviour and as a general deterrent to all young men who resort to the use of weapons when angry and drunk.  
	6.	The maximum penalty for the offence you have pleaded guilty to is 10 years in prison.  Considering the circumstances of this matter I agree with the prosecution that a 5 year start point is appropriate. But I do not agree that 5 years should be increased to 6 years because of your previous conviction.  The 5 years includes a 6 month upgrade to cater for your previous conviction, so the start point is 5 years in prison.  For your guilty plea I deduct one-quarter of that term a period of 15 months, leaves a balance of 45 months.  You are not a first offender so I cannot give you credit for that.  I have now been informed that there has been an apology and that has been confirmed by the probation office.  For the reconciliation you are entitled to a deduction I will deduct 6 months from your balance of sentence, leaves a term of 39 months.  I note from the facts of the matter there was some provocation offered by the victim.  To reflect that I will deduct a further 3 months from the balance of your sentence of 39 months, leaves 36 months or 3 years in prison.  
	7.	In respect of the charge of grievous bodily harm, you will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison but your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted.
JUSTICE NELSON