IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Cooper [2014] WSSC 197

Case name: 	Police v Cooper	
		
Citation: 	[2014] WSSC 197	
		
Decision date: 	21 November 2014	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution)
GARY COOPER male of Savaia-uta. (Defendant) AND TAUTALAFUA ALA PIO male of Savaia-uta. (Second Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	For this offence gentlemen you will both be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison, remand in custody time awaiting sentence to be deducted.	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa for prosecution
S Ponifasio for defendants	
		
Catchwords: 	-	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	GARY COOPER male of Savaia-uta.
Defendant

AND:

	TAUTALAFUA ALA PIO male of Savaia-uta.
Defendant

Counsel:	O Tagaloa for prosecution
S Ponifasio for defendants

Sentence:	21 November 2014

SENTENCE
1.	The defendants have pleaded guilty to one charge of arson.  The police summary of facts which the defendants have accepted through their counsel says the first defendant is a 27 year old male of Savaia-uta.  He is a faifa’atoaga.  The second defendant 20 years of age single also of Savaia-uta and also a faifa’atoaga.  The victim is a 33 year old male also of the village of Savaia married with 4 children.
2.	On 5 May 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon the defendants were on their way home from a village meeting where they had been fined by the village matais for not participating in a village galuega.  The victim was one of the matais who had participated in fining the defendants.  On their way home the defendants passed by the victims house at Savaia-uta and decided to rest and smoke cigarettes.  They smoked their cigarettes at the house.  According to the summary after they finished they recklessly threw their live butts into a box of clothes in the corner of the house.  The box caught fire and the fire spread to the rest of the house damaging it substantially.  
3.	A passing van noted the two defendants walking a distance away from the house before they saw the burning house.  The van stopped and the passengers and the victims neighbours helped put out the fire.  The victim was advised about his house.  The summary said the defendants were taken before the village fono where it was unanimously decided the matter should be referred to the police leading to the charge against the defendants to which they have pleaded guilty.  
4.	The photos provided by the police shows two things: firstly, that the house is situated inland in a plantation and that it is a “fale tu’ufua” as maintained by the defendants.  But the house also contained at least two “pusa lavalava” and other household materials and the photos show what looks like a kitchen in a separate building to the rear of the main house.  There are clear indications of recent habitation of the house.  The complainant says in a statement filed before the court that the house was recently built, completed at the end of 2013 and had been occupied by him and his family.   But at the relevant date they had moved seaward because his wife was getting near her time to deliver a baby and also to housesit for the wife’s parents who had gone to New Zealand for medical treatment.  
5.	The complainants statement details a loss of over $5,000 worth of materials and other goods and while I do not necessarily accept the complainants values for these goods, it is clear that a lot of goods were destroyed in the fire.  This represents a complete loss because the defendants are not in any position to make restitution.  I also note from the pre-sentence report that neither of the defendants nor their families have made any effort to culturally apologise in the appropriate manner for what happened.  There is only a reference to an apology made to the complainants mother in law.
6.	The legal maximum for arson is 14 years in prison gentlemen and arson is a serious crime.  I do not for one second accept this was an accident.  You had plenty of places to throw your cigarette butts but you deliberately threw them to start a fire.  The result was substantial damage to the complainants property although I note from the photographs it was not a total loss.  Imprisonment is an appropriate penalty for your offending as a general and particular deterrent to teach you and others that you cannot go around burning peoples houses for perceived injustices.  
7.	In terms of an appropriate term I start sentencing at 4 years imprisonment.  But as noted by your lawyer you are entitled to certain deductions.  Firstly for your guilty plea, a deduction of one-quarter of your penalty a period of 1 year, leaves 3 years imprisonment.  You both have good backgrounds of service to your aiga and your community, you are first offenders, you have clean police records, you both have references on your behalf filed by your faifeau and pulenuu.  To reflect those matters I will deduct 6 months from the balance leaves 2½ years.  You have both been banished because of this conduct, to reflect that I will deduct a further 6 months, leaves a balance of 2 years in prison.  
8.	For this offence gentlemen you will both be convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison, remand in custody time awaiting sentence to be deducted.

JUSTICE NELSON