IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Ulumoto [2015] WSSC 161

Case name: 	Police v Ulumoto	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 161	
		
Decision date: 	20 July  2015	
		
Parties: 	The Police (Prosecution)
Ulumoto Ulumoto also known as Toma Ulumoto, male of Laulii (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 	S2194/12	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the charge of indecent assault convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison remand in custody time to be deducted.  	
		
Representation: 	Ms Amosa for prosecution
Defendant 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:

	ULUMOTO ULUMOTO also known as TOMA ULUMOTO, male of Laulii.
Defendant

Counsel:	Ms Amosa for prosecution
T Atoa for defendant

Sentence:	20 July 2015

SENTENCE
1.	The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault which occurred at Laulii on 20 October 2012 and involved a girl under the age of 12 years.  According to the police summary of facts which the defendant seems to accept through his counsel the girl was at the time 8 years of age.  The usual suppression order will issue prohibiting publication of the details of the young girl.  
2.	The police summary indicates the defendant is a 21 year old single male of the village of Laulii.  And that this offence occurred at night after a bingo game which was attended by the victim’s grandmother.  The victim was with her grandmother but when the bingo finished she ran home to tell her mother about the money her grandmother had won at the bingo.  On her way home she encountered the defendant.  
3.	The defendant grabbed her and carried her under a nearby bridge.  He carried her with one hand and his other hand covered her mouth to prevent her from making noise.  When they got under the bridge the defendant took off the victims clothes and licked her genitals with his tongue.  He also inserted his finger into her genitalia which caused her great pain according to her victim impact report.  The summary says that while he was doing this the victim was crying.  
4.	At some stage she was able to get away from the defendant.  Came across another girl at the village and immediately reported what the defendant had done to her.  The matter was reported to the police the same night and the defendant was sought.  The defendant was eventually located by the police and arrested and charged.  When he was released on bail he failed to turn up to court for the calling of his matter which is why this incident which happened in 2012 has only now reached a stage where the defendant can be sentenced.  
5.	The female victim is now 11 years old but her victim impact report states that at the time she felt very scared.  It also details the discomfort she suffered as a result of the defendants sexual attack.  I have no information as to whether the actions of the defendant caused any physical injury to the young girl because there is no medical report provided.  But the girls victim impact report states the offence has had a lasting impression on her.  She still recalls it and the victims mother reports the offending resulted in a change in behaviour of the victim who is now very timid and afraid to go out by herself anywhere.  
6.	I accept the offending was opportunistic but it is still very serious.  It involves an 8 year old girl who was abducted at night and taken to a dark isolated area.  At first blush it would appear more serious charges are warranted but for reasons best known to themselves the police have elected to file only one of indecent assault.  It is not the courts function to question the exercise of that prosecutorial discretion.  I will therefore sentence the defendant on the charge he has been prosecuted on and to which he has pleaded guilty.  Because he was prosecuted under the old Crimes Ordinance his offence having been committed in 2012 the maximum penalty for the charge is only 7 years in prison.  
7.	Considering all the circumstances of this matter I agree with the prosecution submission that a 4 year start point for sentence is justified.  But there are deductions Ulumoto you qualify for which I will now make for you.  For your guilty plea even though it was entered late namely on trial day it has avoided the young girl having the unpleasant experience of testifying in court.  I therefore give you full credit for your guilty plea of one-quarter deduction, that is 1 year leaves a balance of 3 years.  
8.	Probation office pre-sentence report confirms the apologies have been given by your caregiver grandmother to the victims grandmother and mother.  To recognize those apologies a 3 month deduction leaves 33 months.  
9.	You have a reasonably good background according to the pre-sentence report of service to your family.  You are a first offender I deduct a further 3 months, leaves 30 months in jail.  
10.	At the time of this offending Ulumoto you were 21 years of age you are entitled to credit for that as our Court of Appeal has recently pointed out.  For that I deduct 6 months leaves an end sentence of 2 years in prison.  
11.	On the charge of indecent assault convicted and sentenced to 2 years in prison remand in custody time to be deducted.  

JUSTICE NELSON