SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pu’e [2016] WSSC 2

Case name: 	Police v Pu’e	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 2	
		
Decision date: 	21January 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v PEPE FAOLUA PU’E male of Fagae’e.	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S3652/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Sapolu	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and given a suspended sentence of 12 months.	
		
Representation: 	O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person 	
		
Catchwords: 	Intentionally causing damage – common assault – maximum penalty – guilty plea at the earliest opportunity – sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:	Aggravating and mitigating features – full reparation	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE S3652/15

BETWEEN

P O L I C E
Prosecution

A N D

	PEPE FAOLUA PU’E male of Fagae’e.
Accused

Counsel:	
O Tagaloa for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence:	21 January 2016

S E N T E N C E
The charge

1. 	The accused Pepe Faolua Pu’e appears for sentence on one charge of intentionally causing damage to property, contrary to s.184 (2) (a) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment; one charge of common assault, contrary to s.123 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; two charges of being armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to s.25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, each of which carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment; and one charge of uttering insulting words, contrary to s.4 (g) of the Ordinance, which carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment.  To all these charges, the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
The offending
2. 	The accused is a 38 year old male and the complainant is a 53 year old male.  Both of them are from the village of Fagae’e in Savaii.
3. 	According to the prosecution’s statement of facts, the accused was already angry with the complainant before this offending took place.  The accused told the Court that he was angry with the complainant because his six barrels for collecting nonus which went missing from his house were later found at the complainant’s house.
4. 	 The prosecution’s statement of facts then relates that around 12 noon on 3 November 2015, the accused got himself drunk and went to the complainant’s house with rocks.  When the complainant’s wife saw the accused, she called out to him not to throw rocks because her young children are inside the house.  The accused in reply, uttered insulting words at the complainant’s wife.  The accused then left and returned with a machete.  The complainant’s wife chased her children to their other house for their safety.  She then begged the accused to leave and wait until her husband arrives home to sort out what the accused is angry with.
5. 	The accused then asked the complainant’s wife where the nonu barrels were but he was told  by the complainant’s wife to leave as she cannot give him the nonu barrels until her husband gets home.  The accused then walked to the first room of the complainant’s home and smashed down the windows with his machete.  He walked to the second room and also smashed down the windows.  When he came to the stereo he also smashed it with his machete.  On his way out of that room, he struck the door damaging the door.  The total value of the damage inflicted by the accused is $1,025.
The accused
6. 	The accused is married with four children.  He is both a planter and a fisherman.  His sources of income are his plantation and fishing.
7. 	The accused is a first offender.  His wife’s testimony given to the probation service for the preparation of the pre-sentence report describes the accused as a loving husband and a good father to their children.
8. 	The accused has apologised to the victim and this matter has been settled.  The accused told the Court that he has replaced all the damaged louvres and repaired the damaged door of the complainant’s house. He has also replaced the complainant’s damaged stereo with his own stereo.  He has also been penalised by his village council and he provided for his penalty ten boxes of herring, two boxes of chicken, and two large pigs.  All of this is confirmed by the complainant in the victim impact report.
The aggravating feature relating to the offending
9. 	Looking at this overall offending, the aggravating features are the use by the accused of rocks in a threatening manner against the complainant’s wife, the use of a machete to inflict damage to parts of the complainant’s house, the extent and value of the damage and the uttering of insulting words.
The mitigating feature relating to the offending
10. 	There was an element of provocation in relation to this offending because the accused’s six nonu barrels which were missing from the house were later found in the complainant’s house.  When the accused went to the complainant’s house for his nonu barrels, he was told by the complainant’s wife that she cannot give him the nonu barrels until her husband returns home.
The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender
11. 	The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender are that he has made full reparation for the damage he had caused to the complainant’s house and stereo, he has apologised to the complainant and this matter has been settled, the penalty he has paid to his village council, and his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
Discussion 
12. 	Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating features relating to this offending as well as the mitigating features relating to the accused as offender, I have decided that a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate.
Result 
1.	The accused is convicted and given a suspended sentence of 12 months.
-------------------------------
CHIEF JUSTICE