SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pupula [2016] WSSC 13

Case name: 	Police v Pupula	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 13	
		
Decision date: 	18 February 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v PUPULA TUPO PUPULA male of Leone.

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S1820/14 – S1824/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Sapolu	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and sentenced to 6 months community supervision.  This term of supervision is to be cumulative on the term of 12 months community supervision imposed on the accused on 23 December 2015.  As a special condition of the accused’s new term of supervision, the probation service, if it considers appropriate, may refer the accused to the Alcohol and Drugs Education Programme of the Alcohol and Drugs Court at any time during his current term of supervision imposed on 23 December 2015	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords: 	throwing stones – armed with a dangerous weapon – uttering insulting word –maximum penalty- plead guilty – mitigating and aggravating features - sentence	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Police Offences Ordinance 1961 s.26 s.25 s.4 (g)	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NOs: S1820/14 – S1824/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

	PUPULA TUPO PUPULA male of Leone.
Accused

Counsel:	
O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	18 February 2016
S E N T E N C E
The charges 
1. 	The accused Pupula Tupo Pupula is 19 years old and unemployed.  He appears for sentence on one charge of throwing stones, contrary to s.26 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, stones without a lawful purpose, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; and one charge of uttering insulting words, contrary to s.4 (g) of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment.  The accused had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges but on the morning of his trial he changed his plea to one of guilty.
The offending 
2. 	In the early hours of 1 June 2015, the complainant went to fetch water from the Manumalo Church building near his house at Leone.  He found the accused sleeping on the veranda of the church building and woke him up and told him to go and sleep at his house.  The accused was drunk.
3. 	The complainant then continued to take the water to his house.  When he returned to fetch more water, he saw the accused inside the church building.  He called to the accused to come out of the church.  When the accused came out, he told the complainant he does not have any business over him and started swearing at the complainant.  He then threw stones towards the church building until the neighbours who saw what was happening intervened and stopped him.
The accused
4. 	The presentence report shows that on the night before this incident, the accused and some of his cousins had been drinking alcohol until 3:00am in the morning.  After their drinking session, the accused walked over and slept on the veranda of the nearby Manumalo Church building at Leone.  That was where the complainant found him sleeping.
5. 	The presentence report also shows that the accused was convicted of causing injury and sentenced on 23 December 2015 to 12 months community supervision and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service.  The present offence was committed on 1 June 2015.
The aggravating and mitigating features
6. 	There is no aggravating feature relating to this offending.  It is also not clear whether the offence of causing injury for which the accused was convicted and sentenced on 23 December 2015 was committed before or after the present offence.  It is therefore not possible to say whether the conviction on 23 December 2015 was for an offence committed prior to or after this offence.
7. 	In respect of the accused as offender, the mitigating features are his young age and his guilty plea even though it was a belated one.
Discussion 
8. 	After considering the circumstances of the offending and those of the accused as offender, I have decided to sentence the accused to another term of community supervision. He needs another chance at rehabilitation. The accused is still 19 years of age and this offence was committed whilst he was under the influence of alcohol or just recovering from it.
Result 
9. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to 6 months community supervision.  This term of supervision is to be cumulative on the term of 12 months community supervision imposed on the accused on 23 December 2015.  As a special condition of the accused’s new term of supervision, the probation service, if it considers appropriate, may refer the accused to the Alcohol and Drugs Education Programme of the Alcohol and Drugs Court at any time during his current term of supervision imposed on 23 December 2015.
10. 	I must, however, warn the accused that this is his second sentence of community supervision.  Another appearance before the Court in the future may land him in prison.  
CHIEF JUSTICE