IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taumafai [2019] WSSC 10

Case name: 	Police v Taumafai	
		
Citation: 	[2019] WSSC 10	
		
Decision date: 	15 February 2019	
		
Parties: 	POLICE  (Informant) and FAATO TAUMAFAI, male of Sapulu, Faleasiu (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Mata Keli Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ supervision with the following condition that:
(i) 	Once a month, the defendant is to assist with cooking a meal for old people’s home at Mapuifagalele and at SVSG.	
		
Representation: 	L. Sio for Prosecution
M. Peteru for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 	manslaughter – high level of provocation – first offender – ifoga – village penalty imposed – non-custodial sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Community Justice Act 2008 s. 13(2).	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E
Informant

AND:

FAATO TAUMAFAI male of Sapulu Faleasiu
Defendant

Counsel:	L. Sio for Prosecution
		M. Peteru for the Defendant 

Sentence:	15 February 2019

S E N T E N C E
1. 	Faato Taumafai appears for sentence on the charge of manslaughter which penalty is maximum life imprisonment. 
2. 	The circumstances of the offending is very unfortunate.  In brief, on Sunday 22 July 2012, Faato and a cousin accompanied a female cousin who had gone shopping with her daughter for their Sunday toonai. According to the summary of facts, the two males went with them because they live far inland and had left early hours of the morning.  
3. 	The deceased who was heavily intoxicated approached them and asked for the cousin’s daughter but they ignored him and kept on walking.  Regardless of their obvious response to the deceased man’s impetuous requests, he was persistent and followed them demanding that the daughter be given to him. Out of fear the daughter ran towards her uncle, the defendant, while the deceased followed her. The defendant then punched the deceased on the jaw and the deceased fell and his head hit the road surface to which he died as a result of the injuries.
4. 	From a Samoan cultural perspective, it is an affront to the Samoan males of a family if a male regardless of ethnicity approaches any female relative the way the deceased had done so this fateful morning openly asking and demanding that the girl be given to him. It is disrespectful and insulting to our shared understanding and worldview and with regards to our Samoan norms and values; it is a breach to the sanctity afforded to Samoan women and girls of being safe in the presence of their brothers or male relatives.  
5. 	The reaction of the defendant and what he did is what any Samoan male would do, if a heavily intoxicated male approached a female relative and demanded that the female relative be given to him.  In the circumstances of this offending, the defendant only delivered one punch which the deceased unfortunately died from.  The defendant was indeed provoked and tempted by the deceased.  The defendant is a first offender. Nevertheless, a loss of life is always taken very seriously by the Court, and the Court in sentencing takes the surrounding circumstances of the offending into account. 
6. 	The deceased’s ‘intoxicated’ state at the time and his behaviour towards the daughter is disconcerting because it shows that there are Samoan males out there that think and treat females as commodities with the mentality that as a ‘man’ can do whatever he likes. This is the attitude and mindset that contributes to sexual offending and domestic violence against women and girls, where such problems will continue to exist in society unless such thinking changes.
7. 	The defendant’s family performed a ‘ifoga’ which was accepted by the deceased’s family.  The defendant’s family was penalized by the village.  The family also contributed to the deceased’s funeral. There are written testimonials provided or attached to the pre-sentence report from a Church Minister (Methodist), the village mayor of Sapulu Village and a confirmation letter from the Manager of Le Vasa Resort where the defendant worked.  The testimonials say that the defendant is hardworking and a good person.  This validates that since the offending in 2012, the defendant has made an effort to positively contribute to the community and also his family, he has also not committed any other offences since.  
8. 	Given the circumstances of this offending the Prosecution recommends a non-custodial sentence of 3 years’ supervision with conditions that the defendant attends counselling and any services that would assist in his rehabilitation.
9. 	The maximum term for supervision is 2 years under the Community Justice Act 2008.
10. 	I agree with the recommendation in the context of this specific offending.  A non-custodial sentence imposed in this case on a charge of manslaughter does not mean that the Court condones such behaviour where a life was taken. 
11. 	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ supervision with the following condition that:
(i) 	Once a month, the defendant is to assist with cooking a meal for old people’s home at Mapuifagalele and at SVSG.

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA