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

Police v Isaako [2014] WSSC 9 (7 February 2014)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Isaako [2014] WSSC 9

Case name: Police v Isaako

Citation: [2014] WSSC 9

Decision date: 7 February 2014
Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and VESTER ISAAKO male of Malie.

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1862/13, S1992/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
sentence, intent to cause actual bodily harm

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013 s.119 (1)

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1862/13, S1992/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

VESTER ISAAKO male of Malie.

Accused

Counsel: L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 7 February 2014

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused Vester Isaako is charged with a co-accused with the offence of with the intent to cause actual bodily harm did cause actual bodily harm pursuant to s.119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013 which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. They pleaded not guilty to the charge but on date of trial vacated their not guilty pleas and entered guilty pleas.
2. When this matter was called for sentencing, the accused appeared but not his co-accused. A warrant was therefore issued for the arrest of the co-accused. That warrant is still outstanding.
3. According to the prosecution’s summary of facts, on Tuesday night 27 August 2013, the accused and the little brother of his co-accused met the victim who was with his friends in front of a shop at Malie. One of the victim’s friends questioned the co-accused’s brother about a previous incident. He then punched the co-accused’s brother in the mouth. The accused and his co-accused’s brother then left the shop and reported what had happened to the co - accused who was at his family’s house. The accused, the co-accused, and a group of friends then came to look for the victim and his friends. When they met up with the victim and his friends, the co-accused approached the victim and questioned him on why he had assaulted his brother. While the victim was trying to explain that it was not him but another boy, the accused punched the victim with a rock on the left side of the jaw causing the victim to fall backwards. The co-accused jumped in and also punched the victim. The victim’s friends then joined in and fought with the accused and the co-accused. Shortly afterwards, people of the village came and stopped the fight. The victim was taken to the hospital the same night and treated for a broken jaw. There is no medical report as to the extent of the victim’s injuries.
4. The victim is 20 years old. He is also single and unemployed. The accused is 17 years old. He was attending school but left school and stayed at home when this incident happened. He wants to return to school depending on the outcome of this case. He does not smoke or drink alcohol.
5. The accused is also a first offender. His mother told the probation service that her son is a good boy but the co-accused who is much older, about 36 years old, often visits his son and that might have resulted in her son being involved in this incident.
6. In relation to the offending, the accused denied that he punched the victim with a rock. I accepted the evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution at the disputed facts hearing that the accused did punch the victim with a rock. However, the accused told the probation service that after he punched the victim on the mouth and the victim fell down, it was his co-accused who continued beating up the victim causing the victim to lose consciousness.
7. The principal aggravating factor in relation to this offending is the accused punching the victim with a rock. There might have been some provocation when a friend of the victim assaulted the brother of the co-accused who was with the accused in front of the shop. But I would not give much weight to this.
8. The first mitigating feature personal to the accused is his young age and his desire to return to school depending on the outcome of his case. He is also a first offender and from his mother’s testimonial he was a person of good character prior to this offending. His plea of guilty to the charge, though belated, is also a mitigating feature personal to the accused.
9. In all the circumstances, I have decided to give the accused a second chance to mend his ways and redeem himself while he is still 17 years old. The accused is sentenced to 12 months probation. As a special condition of his probation, he is ordered to perform 50 hours of community service as directed by the probation service.
   

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney General’s Office, Apia for prosecution