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

Police v Uolilo [2014] WSSC 91 (13 January 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Uolilo [2014] WSSC 91

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

VALUFITU FIU UOLILO, male of Lepea.
Defendant

Counsel: F Lagaaia and G Nelson for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 13 January 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant appears for sentence on three charges. One of causing grievous bodily harm, one of causing actual bodily harm and one of armed with a dangerous weapon. The police summary of facts which he admitted at the last calling of this case says he is 25 years of age from the village of Lepea married with four children. He was employed by an automotive company in Savalalo. The complainant is a 33 year old male of Tulaele and Vaovai Falealili a work mate of his from that company.
2. On the morning of Wednesday, 29 October 2013 the complainant was at the Savalalo Flea Market having a breakfast of pancakes and tea. Somehow as the defendant walked past the complainant and his crew he stepped on their pancakes. This led to some swearing and an argument between the complainant and the defendant. And resulted in the defendant challenging the victim and saying “e te fia ulavale?” The complainant responded and said “tuu nei tei ua ou toe tu atu i luga tu’i lou gutu.” And the defendant responded “faatalitali la oe pe a tatou oo atu i uta i le fale faigaluega”. The men then proceeded to their place of work.
3. At the place of work the complainant was in the changing room when he was approached by the defendant. The defendant was holding what the summary says is a piece of metal. He approached the complainant and challenged him to a “fusuaga” or a fight. The police summary says the complainant turned away from the defendant and said “maimau fua galuega i na mea, alu ia e aveese lau uamea”. At that point the defendant struck the back of the complainants head. This caused a laceration to the back side of his head approximately 5 inches long and requiring twelve stitches. That is a significant injury. The defendant left the room leaving the complainant lying on the ground. The complainant was taken to hospital by his colleagues.
4. This is thus a case of an assault using a weapon. In this case what is described initially as a piece of metal. In fact it is more than a piece of metal. It is a metal pipe which the court has inspected. Very heavy and made of steel. It is potentially a lethal weapon.
5. Too often the court sees cases of assault involving weapons. Commonly these are machetes or sapelu or stones and all too often the result just like this case is use of a weapon to inflict serious life threatening injuries. Just like this case. It is also apparent the complainant was struck from behind by the defendant. And the positioning of the wound indicates the complainant had turned his back. It was then that the defendant struck him on the head with the iron pipe. After that strike the defendant walked away and left the unconscious complainant lying there. He was only taken to hospital by his work mates. No effort to render aid on defendants part.
6. There is no question the circumstances of your actions require a deterrent penalty of imprisonment. Because the message to you Valufitu must be that if you do this sort of thing you will suffer that consequence. Had you used your hands to assault the complainant it could have been a different penalty but you did not you used a metal pipe. The message to the public must be that if you attack someone like this with a lethal weapon and cause a serious injury you will go directly to jail.
7. The offence you have pleaded guilty to carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Given the circumstances of your matter however Valufitu the court will start sentencing at 5 years. From that deductions will be made for the factors in your favour. Firstly for your guilty plea which has saved the courts time I will deduct one-third of the sentence that leaves a balance of 40 months. You have a good family background Valufitu it is contained in the probation office pre-sentence report. You work to support your aiga and your family responsibilities and there are character references that have been filed with the probation office from your village and your pulenuu. Although I note the one from your faifeau says you are not an active member of your church congregation and do not participate in church activities. For those references I will deduct a period of 4 months from your balance of sentence leaves 36 months.
8. The probation report also refers to the fact that you have apologised for what you did. That has been confirmed by the sister of the complainant because the complainant has now left for New Zealand. The sister also confirmed that the complainant has forgiven you for what you did and confirms that you paid an amount of money to the complainant which was duly accepted. And also that you did some other things like providing food. For the matter of reconciliation and the restitution that you have made I will deduct a term of 12 months from the balance of your sentence. Leaving 24 months. There are no other factors Valufitu that you qualify for deduction from your sentence. For the offence of grievous bodily harm you will be convicted and sentenced to 24 months in prison. T
9. In relation to the second charge against you of actual bodily harm that is a duplicate charge I dismiss that charge. The third charge against you of armed with a dangerous weapon namely the steel pipe that was indeed a dangerous weapon. For that you will be convicted and sentenced to 9 months in prison. But I will order that term be served concurrent with your other term.
10. O lona uiga o le faaiuga o le mataupu lenei e tuli faatasi faasalaga na e lua Valufitu. E 24 masina e te nofo sala ai i le falepuipui mo le faaoogalima lea. Faafetai ua maea.

JUSTICE NELSON