SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Taugofie [2022] WSSC 69 (21 December 2022)

Case name: 	Police v Taugofie	
		
Citation: 	[2022] WSSC 69	
		
Decision date: 	21 December 2022	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) AND NASERI LEFIA TAUGOFIE a.k.a. NASERI LEFIA male of Vailele, Matavai Asau and Gautavai. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S1377/21	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:	 	
		
Order:	-	On the charge of manslaughter, you will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. Any remand in custody time to be deducted from that term. 	
		
Representation: 	B. Vukalokalo for prosecution
M. Lui for defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	-	 Unlawful act namely assault cause the death – manslaughter - post mortem medical report -  severe and traumatic head injuries – alcohol played a major role - 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	 	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

NASERI LEFIA TAUGOFIE a.k.a. NASERI LEFIA male of Vailele, Matavai Asau and Gautavai.
Defendant

Counsel:	
B. Vukalokalo for the prosecution 
M. Lui for defendant
Sentence:	 21 December 2022

S E N T E N C E
1.	The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to a charge that at Vailele-uta on 08 August 2021 he did by an unlawful act namely assault cause the death of the victim in this matter Tuitamai Moegalupe Nikolao at the Tupua Tamasese Meaole National Hospital on 13 August 2021 thereby committing the crime of manslaughter. 
2.	The Police summary of facts which has been accepted by defendants counsel states that at the time the defendant was a 20 year old male of Vailele and Matavai, Savaii and worked for Taula beverages at Falelauniu. The victim was a 45 year old also of Vailele and Lepā, Aleipata.
3.	On the 07 August 2021 around 9:00 pm in the evening a drinking party involving the defendant and some friends was held at Vailele. About 11:00 pm two of the defendants friends left the party to buy some cigarettes and because the store had closed decided to visit the house of the deceaseds family at Vaitele. At Vaitele a fight broke out between the defendants friends and members of the deceaseds family including the deceaseds nephew.  Meantime the defendant while looking for his friends met up with the deceased.
4.	The deceaseds brother then entered the picture and at Vailele came across the defendant and the deceased drinking on the side of the road. The deceaseds brother parked his car jumped out and went over to where the deceased and the defendant were sitting. He mistakenly thought the defendant was involved in the earlier fight at Vaitele and started berating him. Whilst the deceaseds brother was telling off the defendant the deceased became angry and hit the defendant on the face with a large bottle of beer felling him. The deceased continued to assault and beat up the defendant while the defendant was on the ground. The deceased obviously believed the defendant was involved in the earlier incident. 
5.	At some stage the defendant managed to extricate himself from the assault and ran away but was chased by the deceased. The deceased eventually caught up to him and a fight between the defendant and the deceased ensued. This fight was eventually stopped by intervening neighbours and the defendant went home. At his house the defendant became increasingly angry about what had happened to him and the fact that he was assaulted for no reason by the deceased and his brother. In one of his statements to the Police he says: 
“O le taimi lea ua matua’i lagona lava le tigā o lo’u loto ia Tuitama’i i lana mea ua fai ua ou lavea ai fua ae ou te leiloa poo le a le mafua’aga. O lo’u loto tigā na o’o ai lo’u mafaufau o le a ou toe alu e su’e e taui lana mea lea ua fai ia a’u.” 
6.	The defendant armed himself with a 2 x 6 piece of timber and headed towards the deceaseds house. He entered the house and found the deceased sleeping alone in the house. He turned on the light and used the timber to hit the deceased on the face four times causing multiple fractures and other injuries to the deceaseds head. After the assault he turned off the light and left the house. 
7.	The next day the deceased was discovered by his brother on the bedroom floor and called for an ambulance which took him to the National Hospital. The deceased was treated at the National Hospital for five (5) days but on 13 August 2021 he succumbed to his injuries. Cause of death as recorded in the post-mortem medical report was severe and traumatic head injuries and blunt force trauma to the head. 
8.	As this court sits as a Coroners Court I certify the cause of death of the deceased was fatal head injuries sustained in the assault by the defendant. I further certify that the defendant is being dealt with according to law and that as will become apparent that alcohol played a major role in this incident. 
9.	On 16 August the defendant was cautioned by Police and charged and on the day of hearing of this matter, when the Prosecution had withdrawn all other charges against him the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. 
10.	This case is another sad example of a party involving in the consumption of alcohol gone wrong leading to the loss of the life of one person and another facing imprisonment. And it is apparent that the notorious Rover Vodka played its usual pivotal jet-fuel role. It is encouraging to read that production of this particularly virulent form of alcohol has been suspended by the Government - hopefully permanently - and that this has led to a dramatic reduction in the number of cases involving alcohol coming before the courts. The relevant authorities must always remain vigilant against lethal mixtures of this kind being sold to the general public in an unregulated and poorly policed market. 
11.	Naseri told the Probation Service that Rover Vodka was what he and his friends were consuming prior to these unfortunate events unfolding and that at the time this happened, he was heavily intoxicated. That of course is no excuse for what the defendant did, but in the future he would probably be wise to stay away from this kind of alcohol indeed all alcohol. 
12.	As to a potential penalty the court bears in mind the relevant principles of among other things accountability, responsibility, denunciation and deterrent specific to the defendant and generally to the community as outlined in the Sentencing Act 2016. Also the seriousness and gravity occasioned by the needless loss of a human life to violence. 
13.	The court must also give due regard to the use of a weapon on an unarmed sleeping and defenceless victim and the deliberate targeting of the victims head four times by the defendant. The defendants motive was plainly revenge for the beating earlier inflicted upon him. 
14.	The general start point for sentences in cases of manslaughter involving the use of a weapon is in the 6 to 10/12 year region. Notwithstanding the provocation occasioned by the victims actions, this was a pre-mediated and calculated act of vengeance on your part Naseri employing a weapon. Ten (10) years is an appropriate start point for sentence. But deductions must be made from that start point for mitigating factors and these have been highlighted by your counsel. 
15.	Firstly for your first offender status and previous good character as outlined in the pre-sentence report the usual deduction of 6 months.  Pre-sentence report also confirms traditional apologies and reconciliation as well as fesoasoani to the deceaseds lau’ava by your family and most importantly, the hand of forgiveness extended to you by the deceaseds brother and their family.  For those things done by you and your family a further 6 months deduction. 
16.	To take account of the substantial provocation as a result of the earlier beating you received and considering that you had no involvement in the earlier assault, this is the classic case of the old saying of “ua fasia fua Foaga ae e le’i fai misa”. I will deduct 2 years to reflect those matters. 
17.	I am also sure Naseri from what I have read and observed of you that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions. You were only 20 years old at the time. You are a young man who just made some very bad decisions on the night in question. I assess that you will probably not repeat this kind of conduct in the future and there are good prospects for your rehabilitation and productive return to the society. You need to put this behind you and get on with your life after you serve your prison term. To take account of your youthfulness and prospects of rehabilitation I will make a further deduction of 1½ years.
18.	The final deduction you are qualified for is your guilty plea because it has saved the unnecessary time and expense of a trial. That also reflects your remorse in this matter, I deduct a further 1½ year from the start point. Your total deductions come to 6 years, leaves a balance of 4 years in prison. 
19.	On the charge of manslaughter, you will accordingly be convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison. Any remand in custody time to be deducted from that term. 

JUSTICE NELSON