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

Police v Tuafale [2024] WSSC 116 (6 December 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Tuafale [2024] WSSC 116 (6 December 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

AND:

ANTHONY NOA TUAFALE male of Vailoa, Aleipata

Defendant

Counsel: L Matauaina for Prosecution
E Peters for the Defendant

Date: 6 December 2024

S E N T E N C E

1. The defendant, Anthony Tuafale, was ‘EXIT’ from the Alcohol and Drugs Court (“ADC”) on 19 November 2024 for continuous relapses whilst undergoing ADC programs.
2. Anthony Tuafale was charged with one count of grievous bodily harm with a maximum penalty of ten (10) years’ imprisonment^[1], one count of armed with a dangerous weapon and one count of throwing stones both with maximum penalty of one (1) year imprisonment.^[2]
3. The summary of facts (“SOF”) provided by the prosecution says that the victim and a friend were on their way to the village pool late at night when they came across Anthony sitting on a nearby grave to the pool. The victim approached Anthony and asked for a lighter whereby the defendant grabbed the neck of his t-shirt and pushed him on to the ground. The victim got up and went home but came back when he heard an argument between his friend and Anthony. Anthony saw the victim walking towards him and threw a stone hitting the victim on the head. The victim suffered a deep cut or laceration on his head.
4. The offences were committed while he was under the influence of alcohol. Anthony pleaded guilty, was assessed and referred to the ADC on 17 June 2024.
5. Anthony was formally accepted into the ADC on 9 July 2024 after the team had carried out a family group conference (“FGC”) with his family to vet the surroundings where he will reside while attending the programs and judicial monitoring, as well as arranging a community justice supervisor (“CJS”) that he will report to whilst in ADC. The CJS is the ‘ears and eyes’ of the ADC in the community to ensure that Anthony (and other ADC participants) comply with their ADC conditions.
6. The relapses by Anthony include two relapses by consumption of alcohol, failure to attend ADC programs, failure to report the CJS and failure to attend to church services on Sundays. The golden rule for any person accepted into the ADC and its programs is no consumption of alcohol/drugs and/or any activity in pursuit of alcohol/drugs.
7. Anthony’s first breach was reported on 10 July for missing a program session, he relapsed on 23 July when he owned up to have been drinking alcohol, he missed four sessions in the week prior to 27 August he continued to miss sessions in the weeks following and was again reported to have again drank alcohol. The Court however in his early breach warned Anthony, at one time ordered for him to be in custody but decided to still work with Anthony by having him remain in the programs. With no appreciation of the countless chances given to him by the ADC Team, Anthony continues to breach his ADC conditions and again relapsed by drinking alcohol for the second time. The Court ‘EXITED’ Anthony on 19 November 2024 and remanded him in custody to be returned to the Supreme Court (criminal) to be sentenced.
8. Anthony was given the opportunity for rehabilitation through the ADC programs but obviously he did not make use nor appreciate the effort of not only the Court, but his family and members of the community to help get his life back on track. His family and CJS played their part in monitoring and making sure that Anthony complies with his conditions not to relapse but Antony continues to breach. His behaviour shows that he is not willing to change and also shows that he is not remorseful for what he did.
9. Anthony is a first offender and has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. There is confirmation by the pulenuu of a village penalty that has been carried out by Anthony. The mother of the victim also confirms an apology by Anthony.
10. Prior to the referral to the ADC and as part of the process for referral the Judge whom he first appeared before and pleaded guilty gave a sentencing indication of 20 months’ imprisonment. This sentencing indication is very relevant to the sentencing Judge.
11. I take the sentencing indication of 20 months’ imprisonment as a starting point. I take into account the number of sessions that Anthony had completed with the ADC programs of 30 sessions (6 remaining), he has completed community hours (63) and deduct 6 months. I further deduct 6 months for being a first offender and 2 months for the apology and village penalty; this leaves 6 months. I then give 25% discount for his early guilty plea which amounts to 2months. This leaves 4 months.

The end sentence

12. Anthony Tuafale is convicted and sentenced as follows:
    • Grievous bodily harm: 4 months’ imprisonment
    • Armed with a dangerous weapon: 3 months’ imprisonment
    • Throwing stone: 3 months’ imprisonment.
13. The sentences are to be concurrent less time in custody to await sentencing.
    

JUSTICE TUATAGALOA

^[1] Crimes Act 2013, s118(1)
^[2] Police Offences Ordinance 1961, ss25 & 26