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

Police v Letele [2024] WSSC 133 (13 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Letele [2024] WSSC 133 (13 November 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I CE

Informant

A N D:

ALAKUNA MAILO FAASOESA LETELE a.k.a ALATUNA MAILO FAASOESA, male of Foailalo and Ti’avea.

Defendant

Counsel: F. Lawrence for prosecution
L. Su’a-Mailo for the defendant

Sentence: 13 November 2024

SENTENCE

1. Defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges, the first that at Foailalo on 13 July 2024 he did attempt to murder Suiva Opapo a male of Gautavai. The second is that same place and day he was armed with a dangerous weapon namely a wood handle axe without lawful purpose. The admitted summary of facts says the defendant is a 37 year old male of Foailalo and Tiavea. And the complainant is a 24 year old male of Gautavai. At the time of the offending both the defendant and the complainant were residing in Foailalo.
2. Around midnight of Friday 12^th July the complainant and a friend were drinking alcohol at Foailalo. They walked to a nearby store to buy more alcohol. They encountered the defendant who was also walking to the store for the same purpose. The store however was closed so the three men went to the defendants house. The complainants friend left leaving only the defendant and the complainant.
3. At some stage something happened between the two men. The Amended Summary of Facts refers to a conversation that the complainant had with the defendants female cousin on the defendants phone. The suggestion seems to be that the complainant was teasing the defendant and this angered him, causing the defendant to go to a different house and pick up the axe. He returned and struck the victim with the axe on the back of the neck. This caused the complainant to fall down and as he tried to get up the defendant delivered another strike to the back of the complainants head. The victim fell back to the ground and the defendant then left the scene.
4. As a result of the assault the victim suffered a large gaping wound to the back of his head approximately 15cm long, in addition to a smaller laceration 4cm long at the back of his neck. When interviewed by the Police the defendant admitted to striking the victim twice with the axe and said that the axe was an axe used to chop wood. That is what is contained in the Amended Summary of Facts agreed upon by counsel.
5. I note the defendant gave a different account to the Probation Service when he was interviewed for his pre-sentence report. But I must proceed on the basis of what is agreed to by counsel and presented in the Amended Summary of Facts. There is no suggestion in that Summary of Facts of provocation or of the victim following the defendant causing him to fear for his wellbeing.
6. I also note the defendant is no stranger to the court process, he has previous convictions albeit they are over ten (10) years old.
7. There is no question the defendants attack is serious and could have had fatal consequences. He has accepted he attacked the victim and tried to kill him. Clearly attacking a persons head with an axe demonstrates deadly intent. The use of a weapon is also something of concern to the court because this happens too often in our community. Where people too readily resort to weapons such as sapelu or stones or in this case an axe to inflict serious harm.
8. The message that the court must continuously send to the defendant and to everyone else is that such conduct will significantly aggravate your offending and will be given serious consideration by the court. The defendants sentence must also hold the defendant accountable for the harm he has caused and denounce his behaviour as unacceptable.
9. I agree with counsel that in this jurisdiction there is no tariff for attempted murder sentencing. The approach to be followed was laid out by the Court of Appeal in Bragovits v National Prosecution Office [2017] WSCA 2 which indicates that generally the R v Taueki [2005] 3NZLR 372 approach can be used with an appropriate uplift for the difference in maximum penalty.
10. The relevant aggravating factors have been correctly identified by counsels namely the violence of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, the targeting of a vulnerable area of the body namely the head, the fact that serious injuries was caused to the complainant. The Victim Impact Report says:
    • “O le tugā o manuaga sa ou aafia ai lea sa umi lava se taimi o tau faape ma ua maila tumau ai le vaega o lou tino sa aafia. E iai lava taimi e fai ma ou faalogoina ai le tiga o vaega o lou tino sa aafia, aemaise le vaega o lo’u ulu lea sa tugā ai le manu’aga. Ua ou toe fo’i ou te faigaluega ae ua fuafua lava le gaioi i le malosi ma le tulaga sa ou a’afia ai. E oo lava i feau masani o lea ua fuafua lava talu ai se aafiaga mai lenei solitulafono.”
11. This indicate that the complainant continues to have ongoing issues with his injuries. It is also clear there was pre-meditation involved in this offending in that the defendant left the faleoo where he and the victim were sitting to fetch an axe from another part of the property before returning and assaulting the unsuspecting victim. Positioning of both injuries in the back of the head indicate the blows were delivered from behind. And according to the Amended Summary of Facts the first blow to the neck was followed as the victim tried to get up by a second strike to the back of the head. Clearly a sustained attack by the defendant.
12. I do not however agree with the prosecution that the facts of this matter are similar to Bragovits and therefore requires a similar treatment. A close reading of Bragovits indicates that there were special aggravating factors that justified the 15 year start point adopted by the sentencing judge.
13. In this case however clearly there are more than three of the Taueki aggravating factors present and in my view this case properly falls within the B-3 Sentencing Band but at its lower level.
14. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is life in prison. Considering all the relevant factors however your sentencing will start at 10 years. That reflects the factors above, the criminality of your offending and its seriousness. You are however entitled as your counsel has properly pointed out to deductions for mitigating factors. The pre-sentence report and the amended summary confirms you are not a first offender and you do have previous convictions including for an offence of violence. But that previous conviction is over 10 years old, no uplift for these would be necessary.
15. Pre-sentence report and the Victim Impact Report confirm no apology or reconciliation was effected in this matter. Pre-sentence report also indicates that your family have had continuous problems with you. There are no good character references or statements from anyone on your behalf. The only matter in your favour Alatuna is your guilty plea to these charges. For that I will give you the full normal deduction of one-quarter of the start point which is 2½ years. Leaves a balance of 7½ years in prison.
16. For the charge of attempted murder Alatuna convicted and sentenced to 7½ years in prison. Remand in custody time to be deducted.
17. For the second charge of armed with a dangerous weapon 12 months in prison, concurrent term.

SENIOR JUSTICE NELSON