SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Seumanutafa [2016] WSSC 94

Case name: 	Police v Seumanutafa	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSSC 94	
		
Decision date: 	20 May 2016	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (prosecution) and ALOIAVA SEUMANUTAFA, male of Falealupo (defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S1296/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	JUSTICE VAAI	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The accused is sentenced to 7 years imprisonment less time spent in custody.  	
		
Representation: 	L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	Attempted murder – aggravating features – surrounding circumstances – imprisonment term	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	ALOIAVA SEUMANUTAFA male of Falealupo
Defendant

Counsel:	
L Su’a-Mailo for prosecution
Unrepresented

Sentence:	20 May 2016

S  E  N  T  E  N  C  E
1.	The accused pleaded guilty to the offence of attempted murder which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  He is 33 years old, and at the time of the offending was living at Falealupo, Savaii.  His wife is 8 months pregnant – this will be their first child.
2.	The accused is well spoken of not only by those who close to him, but also by his village cultural leaders as well as his religious mentor.  His offending is without doubt completely out of his character.
3.	It must be said however that the offending by the accused is considered to be the worst of its kind, involving the delivery of 4 strikes with a bush knife to a 68 year old unarmed victim who was lying helplessly on the ground.
4.	A lengthy custodial sentence cannot be avoided.
The offending
5.	In 2014 the brother of the accused was banished by the Village Council of Falealupo.  He must live outside of Falealupo until the village council decides otherwise.  But in 2005 the brother returned despite the banishment order.  On the 10th April 2015 the village council ordered the abled men (taulele’a) to remove the brother’s belongings from his house and put them on a truck.    When that was done, the brother was told to get on the truck and leave.  The brother’s rude response angered the victim who punched the brother who then left and drove to the house of the accused.
6.	According to the summary of facts which is not disputed, the accused upon being told by his brother of what the victim did, got into his car and drove to the victim’s house.  When he saw the victim walking he stopped the car grabbed the machete and struck the victim but missed.  The victim then ran away.  When the victim stumbled and fell to the ground the accused struck the victim with the bush knife.  Two of the strikes severed the victim’s fingers and caused lacerations on the right arm which the victim used to fend the strikes.  The fourth strike caused a laceration above the right eye.  It also severed another finger.
7.	Injuries suffered by the victim were:
(i)	15cm long x 3cm deep incision along the while eye-brow.
(ii)	two deep incisions about 18cm long x 4cm deep parallel to each other at the right forearm.  These two wounds exposed the fractured bones.
(iii)	traumatic amputation of the tip of the left hand
(iv)	traumatic amputation of the tip of the left thumb
(v)	degloving wounds of left index finger and left middle finger exposing bone and joint
(vi)	20cm long x 3cm deep incision along right outer thigh 
Aggravating features
8.	When the accused was told of the assault by the victim of his brother, he got in his car and went looking for the victim.  He knew of the bush knife under his seat.  He stopped the car, armed himself with the knife, ran to the victim and delivered a strike which missed.  He pursued the victim who ran away.  When the victim stumbled and fell down, the accused delivered two strikes which severed the victim’s fingers and injured his arm which he used to fend off the strikes.  Another strike injured the victim’s right thigh.  He also lost consciousness.
Sentence 
9.	In the circumstances, I consider 11 years as the appropriate starting point.  For his delayed guilty plea, I deduct 2 years.  Twelve months is deducted for the traditional apology and another 12 months is also deducted for the village fine.  
10.	The accused is sentenced to 7 years imprisonment less time spent in custody.  
JUSTICE VAAI