Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Police v Maposua [2017] WSSC 150 (15 December 2017)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Maposua [2017] WSSC 150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

AFERETI TALATO MAPOSUA male of Fasitoo-uta, Ululoloa and Falelauniu-uta.
Defendant

Counsel:
L Sio for prosecution
I Sapolu for defendant

Hearing: 15, 16, 17 & 20 November 2017

Sentence: 15 December 2017

S E N T E N C E

1. After a defended hearing a panel of assessors by unanimous verdict found the defendant guilty of the offence of manslaughter and the offence of being armed with a dangerous weapon namely a sapelu. The victim in this matter is tragically the defendants own 15 year old son Taumafai Afereti.
2. As this court also sits as a Coroners Court I issue the Coronial Finding that Taumafai Afereti, a single male age 15 years of Falelauniu died at Falelauniu on the night of 14 February 2017 as a result of severe neck injury inflicted by a machete. I further certify that alcohol was a factor in this homicide and his father has been found guilty of his manslaughter and will be dealt with according to the law.
3. This is a sad case from many different perspectives and the court extends its sympathies to the mother and family of Taumafai whose death was quite needless and unnecessary.
4. The defendant also pleaded guilty to assaulting and attempting to cause serious bodily injury to his brother Onosai Talato as part and parcel of this incident. He requires today to be sentenced on those charges as well.
5. The facts at the trial revealed that the defendant on the day in question began drinking early in the afternoon following a family galuega which also involved his two sons Taumafai and the younger boy Atinae. The defendant began by consuming six (6) large vailima bottles then instructed his wife to fetch a further four (4) bottles on credit from a nearby store. Which they duly did and about 7:00 pm that evening the family had dinner. All ate except for the defendant. He left the family home followed by his wife and two sons heading to the house of his neighbour Tele’a where his brother Onosai was drinking.
6. The defendant took with him one and a half unconsumed Vailimas and in his right hand he carried his extremely sharp sapelu. At Tele’as house the defendant began behaving aggressively. Some witnesses said he was rubbing or “oloolo” the tip of his sapelu on the concrete, others said he was using the sapelu to stab the concrete floor of Tele’as house. When questioned by his brother, he put the knife to his brothers neck and according to the brother said to him “ou te manao e sami la’u agaese” or words to that effect.
7. The defendant then delivered a superficial cut to one of his brothers hands and when the brother backed away he tried to strike him again but the sapelu caught the wire of an overhanging light bulb. This deflected the knife which witnesses said boomeranged back and injured the defendants hand. And also led to the power being cut to the house as the light was the only one in the building. Everything went dark and not surprisingly the drinking party disbursed. The defendant was led away holding his bleeding hand by his sons.
8. The evidence of Atinae was the defendant was “faauouo” his older son Taumafai as they were walking away and questioning Taumafai as to where his mother was hiding. He also testified he was accusing Taumafai of hiding the mother. The mothers testimony was she had at the first sign of trouble run away into the bush. At some stage the defendant obtained possessions of Taumafais knife which was smaller than his and which had a broken tip. Atinae said the father had asked Taumafai for the sapelu and Taumafai handed it over.
9. The defendants cautioned statement to the Police then tells us what happened next:

“Na matou savavali mai agai i le auala tele ma matou tu tu i lalo o le titi. Sa ou faauouoina lava lau fanau ma ou fai ia Taumafai e aumai ia te a’u lana sapelu. Na ou matuā ita tele ona o le le maua poo fea ua sola iai lo’u toalua. Aemaise o lo’u ita tele i lo’u atalii lea o Taumafai ona oute iloa o loo ia iloaina le mea o loo lafi ai lona tina ae musu e ta’u mai. O le taimi foi lea o loo sisina lava le toto mai lo’u lima taumatau lea na lavea ia Onosai. Na faatolu lava ona ou fesili ia Taumafai poo fea o iai Koreti (the defendants wife) ma e tasi lava lana tali e na te leiloa ma ua atili ai le oso o lo’u ita ona oute iloa o loo pepelo lo’u atalii. Ma ou sii loa i luga lo’u lima taumatau o loo uu ai la’u sapelu ma oso ese loa Taumafai mai ia te au ma ou sogia loa i la’u sapelu tusi tolu.”

10. Later on in his cautioned statement he goes on to say when he was asked by the police officer:

“O le taimi lea na e sogia ai lou atalii i le sapelu, aisea na alai ona e sogia lou atalii ae le sogi le laau poo seisi mea latalata ane?”

His answer was:

“E le’i iai so’u faamoemoe o le a ou faasiotia lo’u atalii, ae ua ova tele lo’u ita na ou tago ai loa ta lo’u atalii.”

11. After being struck the young boy ran to the house of a neighbour Viliamu Maposua and after telling the neighbour that his father had assaulted (“fasi”) him, he fell on to the ground and died. The strike had caused a chop type wound to the left side of the neck of the young boy and was deep enough that according to the pathologist who conducted the postmortem, it went down to the bone. The strike severed many of the veins that supply blood to the main jugular and other arteries on the left side of the neck. The pathologist explained that the entry of air into the veins together with massive blood loss quickly resulted in the boys death. Absent immediate medical treatment this was an unsurvivable injury.
12. This is an extremely tragic tale of alcoholic madness resulting in the loss of a young boys life taken from him by his drunken out of control father. It is just sir that you should be haunted by the knowledge of what you did for the rest of your time on this earth. I deal firstly with the more serious of the charges that of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for which is life imprisonment.
13. In respect of this offence it has often been stated that there is no offence in which the permissible degree of punishment covers so extensive a range and requiring the exercise of so large a discretion in penalty: Nepa v Attorney General [2010] WSCA 1. Each case is very much dependent on its own facts. This case certainly falls into the category of a unique factual situation.
14. Aggravating factors include the use of a lethal weapon. The court viewed the machete which was produced at the trial and while it has a broken tip, it is very much a dangerous weapon. And the presence of blood around the tip and front edge of the blade is indicative of its killing ability. The area of the strike is also relevant. In this regard the defendants cautioned statement says:

“Fesili: na e iloaina o ga fea tonu o le tino o lou atalii na tau ai lau ta?

Tali: ona sa fai sina pogisa ma ua oso ese lo’u atalii mai ia te a’u, na ou taina ai le ataata o lo’u atalii, ma na ou iloaina o loo lavea lo’u atalii i le mata o la’u sapelu.”

15. This shows that the defendant could see the boys outline or “ataata”. It also shows something else. It shows that he struck out not at the lower limbs or at the extremities of the shadow but at the upper body, an area maximum vulnerability. He well knew the boy was unarmed because he had gained possession of his sons knife. The defendant was clearly angry at the deceased, his own words to the police illustrate the depth of his anger.
16. It also appears this is not the first time the defendant has lashed out at his son. His court record shows that his previous conviction in 2015 was for causing injury to his wife and to his son, the same son using a machete. Similar circumstances existed there. The defendant had been drinking became angry at his wife and hit her with the “lau” of his sapelu. He then left the house and on returning noticed his wife was not there. He questioned Taumafai and the young boy trying to protect his mother told him he did not know where she was. So he assaulted him with the “lau” of his sapelu. This time Afereti went one better, he did not use the lau, he used the tip of his sapelu to strike his son with fatal consequences.
17. It is also relevant that this case involves the loss of a young life. His son was only 15 years of age. The defendants action has deprived this young man of a future. His life has been cut short at a young age for no good or justifiable reason. It is also relevant to consider the violence of the attack that caused the boys death. Taumafais last memory of this world would be of being attacked and injured by his father. I shudder to think what would have gone through his mind as he laying dying in his neighbours drive way alone unaided slaughtered like an animal. Produced at trial was a picture of him lying in a pool of blood beside his neighbours patio where he fell. It is true what they say ladies and gentlemen, a picture is worth a thousand words.
18. This is a case of domestic violence at the extreme end of the spectrum of such matters. The victim is the defendants biological son whom he had assaulted with a sapelu on at least one previous occasion. The courts penalty must reflect this pertinent fact.
19. The purpose of sentencing is to hold a defendant accountable for his actions and to denounce such actions. In this case to also send a message to the defendant and other drunken fathers that if you go on a rampage like this resulting to the death of one of your children this is most likely your fate. And given this defendants background of violence it is in the interests of justice that his family and the community he lives in be protected from him.
20. The defendant is beyond rehabilitation. That has been tried. He has a history of violence. He completed an Anger Management Program but he is one of the few people for whom that has not worked. He has deep-seated behavioural problems which are brought to the surface by alcohol. Those problems appear never to have been fully addressed or resolved. In my assessment he is an incurable menace to his family and to society. There is only one place for him.
21. I take into consideration the relevant parts of sections 5,6 and 7 of the Sentencing Act 2016 and because the deceased in this matter is a child under 18 years of age I also take into account section 8(2) of the legislation. Considering all relevant circumstances I start sentencing at 15 years in prison which I upgrade to 18 years to reflect the defendants history of violence generally and to his son in particular.
22. In mitigation of sentence I take into account what his defence counsel has submitted notably the defendants willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter from the outset. Prosecution however rejected that and elected to pursue a charge of murder. There was a basis for them doing so, although not necessarily a strong one. The assessors obviously accepted by their verdict the fact that this was not a case of murder but of manslaughter and in the circumstances I am therefore prepared to give you some credit for your willingness from the beginning to plea to the lesser charge. Defence counsel has asked for a deduction of at least 6 months to reflect that issue. I concur but I think it is worth more. In the unusual circumstances of this matter I will deduct 2 years from the start point for sentence, leaves a balance of 16 years.
23. I accept you are genuinely remorseful for your crime. It is only human for you to feel that. But this is a crime brought about by your own hand and it did not need to happen. However I also accept you have apologized to your wife and children and that your apology is sincere. For your remorse and for the reconciliation I will deduct a further one year from the balance of sentence, leaves 15 years.
24. You are not a first offender; you do not have a good previous character there will be no deduction allowed for those matters or for any other matters in mitigation.
25. In respect of the charge of manslaughter you will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. That time is to commence from when you were first taken into custody following this incident.
26. In respect of the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon you have a previous conviction for the same offence, you also used a machete on your wife in 2015. Convicted and sentenced on that charge to the maximum of 12 months in prison, term to be served concurrently.
27. In respect of the charge of attempted bodily injury on your brother again you have a recent previous conviction for causing bodily injury. The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years. In the circumstances of this matter and your attempting to use a machete against your brother, allowing for your guilty plea convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison, concurrent term.
28. In respect of the assault on your brother with the machete convicted and sentenced to 12 months also a concurrent term.
29. The nett effect of all these sentences is the defendant will serve 15 years in prison beginning from when he was first taken into custody in this matter.
    

...............................
JUSTICE NELSON