THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA 
Police v Godinet [2016] WSSC 166

Case name: 	Police v Godinet	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 166	
		
Decision date: 	9 August 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) v KOME PHILLIP GODINET male of Aleisa and Samalaeulu Savaii (Accused) 

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Tafaoimalo Tuala Warren	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	•	You are convicted of the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and ordered to come up for sentence in 10 months time.	
		
Representation: 	O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
T. Atoa for the Accused

Catchwords: 	causing grievous bodily harm with intent	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, section.118(1)	
		
Cases cited:	Police v Tinotaua [2016] WSSC 67 (22 March 2016)	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

KOME PHILLIP GODINET male of Aleisa and Samalaeulu Savaii
Accused

Counsel:
O. Tagaloa for Prosecution
T. Atoa for the Accused

Sentence: 9 August 2016
S E N T E N C E
The charge
1.	The accused is from Aleisa and Samalaeulu Savaii. He appears for sentence on one charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, pursuant to s.118(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. 
2.	He entered through Counsel a not guilty plea to the charge. On 14 June 2016 when the matter was to be heard, he was granted leave to change his plea to a guilty plea
The offending 
3	The Prosecution summary of facts admitted by the accused says that on 25 September 2015, the victim and another vendor at the market started fighting. While they were fighting, the accused approached the victim and hit his head using as metal pipe. This caused the victim’s head to bleed and he almost lost consciousness. 
4	The victim was taken to the hospital and according to the medical report, the victim sustained a 4 ½ inch cut at the right temporo parietal scalp (soft tissue injury on the scalp).
The accused
5	As shown in the pre-sentence report, the accused is 59 years old, married with 6 children. He lives with his wife at Aleisa and his children all live in New Zealand.
6	He has lived in New Zealand and Hawaii and mainly worked in carpentry.
7	Due to his age, he now tends their vegetable garden and produces Samoan tobacco which he sells at the market. This income is supplemented by remittances from his children in New Zealand.
8	His wife told Probation that the accused is a family man who is always humble. She remains supportive of the accused. 
9	There are two testimonials from Reverend Elekosi Viliamu (EFKS Aleisa) and the government representative for Aleisa. Both say that the accused is quiet, humble and hard working.  Both have expressed shock about his offending.  
10	The accused expressed remorse to Probation and told the Court today that he has made amends with the wife and children of the victim. He told Probation that he shocked himself by his actions but his actions were to stop the victim and another vendor’s fight.
11	He has no previous convictions.
The victim
12	According to the victim impact report provided to the Court, the victim is 50 years old from Moamoa. He has 8 children and sells ava and tobacco at the Fugalei market. 
13	He says that the injury to his head has resulted in him getting headaches, which he never had before. It took 4 months to heal his injuries.
14	He remains fearful of the accused as he still sees him at Fugalei market and they have not spoken to each other since the incident. He still cannot understand why the accused did what he did that day. The accused has not apologised personally but they are right next to each other selling their products at Fugalei market.
Aggravating features of the offending
15	It is aggravating that the victim suffered an injury to his head, which is a delicate part of the body.
16	It is also aggravating that the accused used a weapon, namely a metal pipe, to the head of the victim which could have been potentially lethal.
17	The victim did nothing to provoke the attack from the accused. It was an attack which was unexpected and unprovoked. 
18	The victim now suffers headaches as a result of the injury, and he also remains fearful of the accused.
Mitigating Factors
19	His favourable testimonials from his church and village leaders are taken into account. The fact that he is a first offender does give credence to these testimonials. He has been of good character, and this offending was out of character.
20	His belated guilty plea to the charge will be taken into account.
Discussion
21	There is an epidemic of violence occurring in our society. The Court’s response is encapsulated in the words of Vaai J in Police v Tinotaua [2016] WSSC 67 (22 March 2016);
•	“People who come before the Court for sentence on charges involving violence must be dealt with very stern, far too many lives have been lost and serious injuries have been caused through violence and the use of a weapon as a result of the violence.” 
22	Counsel for the accused submits that a custodial sentence would be contrary to the purposes of justice and inappropriate given the facts and circumstances.
23	The circumstances as I see here is an unprovoked attack upon a victim using a weapon, and it was an attack to the head of the victim. It is fortunate that the injury was a soft tissue injury on the scalp. These circumstances require deterrence.
24	However, Mr Godinet, what is glaring to me is that you have gone through 59 years of life with an untarnished record.  It appears to me from your pre-sentence report, where you say that you surprised yourself by the actions you carried out that day, and from the shock of those who provided written testimonials, that your actions that day were completely out of character. I am also mindful that it is just you and your wife in Samoa, and your children are all in New Zealand and send remittances to supplement your income from selling tobacco. 
25	In sentencing we must keep in mind the protection of the public, inter alia.  I do not think that is a major concern in this case. I do not assess your risk of reoffending to be of concern. 
26	What often creeps into sentencing and rightly or wrongly can play a part in sentencing is mercy and compassion.  I pay regard to these in this case. 
27	Having taken into account the aggravating features of the offending (there being no mitigating features of the offending), I find that for you, a non-custodial sentence is appropriate today. I am concerned about the kind of message that this will send out to the public because there is a strong need for deterrence in violent offences, but I have considered all the circumstances of this case, including your individual circumstances and have found that this experience alone will act as a major deterrence for you. 
28	However this must never happen again. I take into account that you were trying to break up a fight, but violence to combat violence is never the answer.  You are at a stage in your life where your responses should be different from responses expected, for instance, from youth. By way of sentence today, the Court will ensure that this does not happen again.
Sentence
29	You are convicted of the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and ordered to come up for sentence in 10 months time.  

JUSTICE TUALA-WARREN