IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Moli [2022] WSSC 9 (19 May 2022)

Case name: 	Police v Moli 	
		
Citation: 	[2022] WSSC 9	
		
Decision date: 	19 May 2022	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution) v VAALELE LESA MOLI, male of Tiavi, Siumu (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Lesātele Rapi Vaai	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Time spent in custody to be deducted.  	
		
Representation: 	T. Sasagi for Prosecution 
Defendant appears in Person	
		
Catchwords: 	intentional damage – arson – recidivist offender – custodial sentence - no restitution 	
		
Words and phrases:	“substantial damage and loss caused by fire” 	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Police v Cooper & Anor [2014] WSSC 197 (21 November 2014).	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Prosecution

AND:

VAALELE LESA MOLI male of Tiavi, Siumu

Defendant

Counsel:	T. Sasagi for Prosecution
		Defendant appears in Person

Date:		19 May 2022

S E N T E N C E
1. 	The defendant, a 40 year old male of Tiavi, is charged that on the 16th day of February 2022 he intentionally damaged by fire two vehicles, furniture and the dwelling house of Sosefina Hill. He is single and unemployed.
2. 	At the first mention of charges on the 14th March 2022 the defendant admitted to the offending. A pre-sentence report was ordered and he was remanded for sentence. He is no stranger to the Court. On the 10th April 2012, he was sentenced to a term of 6 years’ imprisonment on narcotics offences and again in 2015 he was given another 3 years sentence to be served cumulatively to his previous sentence, again for narcotic offending. He was released on parole in 2018.
The offending
3. 	According to the summary of facts, the defendant and his friends were on the night of the 15th February 2022 drinking alcohol at the home of the defendant until the early hours of the next day when the defendant decided to walk to his other house. He went into the unoccupied house of the victim who was overseas at the time. He turned on the gas stove and left the house. According to the summary, “The defendant saw the flame bursting and thus left the victim’s house with the gas stove being on fire disregarding the victim’s house and properties. The flames grew out of control and enough to consume and damage the victim’s  house including two vehicles that were parked inside the garage. A relative of the victim who witnessed the fire alerted the police. 
The victim 
4. 	At the time of the offence the victim was overseas leaving her house unoccupied. She had recently built her house which she financed by selling her house in New Zealand. According to the victim impact report, NZD$350,000 was originally remitted to Samoa and a further NZD$50,000 was sent. Other than the house and the two vehicles destroyed, there was also the boat, washing machine, fridge and freezer, stove, gas cooker, two water tanks and family photos. She said: 
	“To this moment, I am still shocked, heartbroken and depressively overwhelmed at the total senseless destruction this person has done to my home. Not only has he destroyed my home but he has made me homeless.”
Defendant’s plea in mitigation
5. 	The defendant told the Court he did not intend to burn down the house. He was drunk and wanted to light a cigarette; he went inside the house to light his cigarette but he forgot to turn off the stove. It was the next day when the police saw him that he knew about the house. He said he is sorry and remorseful for his wrongdoing. He apologised and implores the Court to impose a non-custodial sentence.
6. 	He was interviewed by the Probation service for the preparation of a pre-sentence report. He told the service that he went to the victim’s house to look for food. He was hungry. He had been drinking spirits (vodka) with his friends at his house. He entered the house from the back door. Whilst lighting his cigarette at the gas stove, the gas bottle accidently exploded and burned the kitchen. He then escaped. 
Prosecution submissions 
7. 	Prosecution submits that the conduct of the defendant exhibited complete recklessness when he unlawfully entered the house which he knew was unoccupied, and when he walked away knowing that it was on fire. A starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is suggested as the appropriate base for commencement of sentence based on Police v Cooper & Anor in which Nelson J adopted a starting point of 4 years for arson with an end sentence of 2 years.  Aggravating features of the offending are identified as the reckless conduct, invasion of the victim’s property, significant loss to the victim and bad character.
Discussion
8. 	When the defendant left the burning house, he knew it will burn to the ground. He made no effort to put it out or summoned assistance. As a neighbour and from the same village, he knew the owner was overseas. He also knew it was a recently built house. 
9. 	He was sent to prison in 2012 for drug offending and released on parole in 2018 until February 2021. He was under the influence of alcohol when he offended again in February 2022. 
10. 	In Police v Cooper & Anor, the value of the small hut and other belongings which were partly burned was estimated at WST$5,000. It would in my respectful view be disproportionate and illogical to adopt the same starting point as in Police v Cooper & Anor. It should exceed 4 years.
11. 	Substantial damage and loss has been caused by the fire. It is a complete loss to the victim because the defendant is not in any position to make restitution. Retribution and deterrence must play a dominant role to denounce the conduct, and deter the defendant and others and to protect the community when considering the appropriate custodial period. He displayed a completely disturbing disregard for the emotional and financial damage inflicted upon the victim by his offending. 
12. 	The maximum penalty provided by law is 14 years’ imprisonment. I consider 5 years and 6 months the appropriate starting point. For his guilty plea at the first mention I will make a 1/3rd discount. 
13. 	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. Time spent in custody to be deducted.  

JUSTICE VAAI