IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 86 (17 July 2025)

Case name: 	Police v Sepetio	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 86	
		
Decision date: 	17 July 2025	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Informant) v FIALELEI VAIFALE SEPETIO (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	14 March 2025	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Perese	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The challenge to the Police Summary as to the machete is rejected.	
	
I direct the matter should be called in the Criminal Mentions list on 28 July 2025 for the allocation of a sentencing date, before me.  A copy of the Summary of Facts must be provided to Probation Services to assist them with the preparation of the pre-sentence report.  Prosecution is to obtain a Victim Impact Report.	
		
Representation: 	R. Fong for Prosecution 
A. Su’a for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 	Disputing summary of facts	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

FIALELEI VAIFALE SEPETIO

Defendant

Counsel:	R. Fong for Prosecution 
		A. Su’a for the Defendant 
	
Hearing:	14th March 2025
Decision:	17th July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. 	The defendant challenges the Police Summary of Facts as to the circumstances of the offending.  Mr Vaifale says that when he entered the kitchen/dining area of Salome Va’s house, Manuele, the victim, was holding a machete.  Mr Vaifale wants to suggest at sentencing that there was a provocation involved - the victim by holding the knife provoked his response. At present, the Police Summary of Facts says the machete was lying on the kitchen table.  
2. 	I have had the opportunity to hear from Salome Va, and the defendant.
3. 	I am satisfied that the machete was lying on the table and not held by the victim at the time Mr Vaifale entered the room; nor is there any evidence the victim picked up the knife at any stage whilst Mr Vaifale was in the room.  Mr Vaifale says that he disarmed the victim, who was seated at the table.  This means any potential threat posed by the alleged provocation had passed when Mr Vaifale threw the knife elsewhere in the room.  After removing the knife from the victim’s reach, Mr Vaifale struck the victim twice.  
4. 	The evidence suggests that the victim was out ‘tafao’, on an outing, and turning up at Salome’s place was part of that outing.  The victim turned up at Salome’s place intoxicated, but he was not aggressive.  Mr Vaifale turned up at Salome’s place soon after the victim’s arrival.   There is not enough evidence for me to determine whether this sequence of events was intentional or by chance.  But I am satisfied the evidence of what happened at the meeting establishes that Mr Vaifale took the opportunity to question the victim about remarks the victim was alleged to have made about a member of Mr Vaifale’s family.  Mr Vaifale’s questioning was direct and insistent; I am satisfied that Mr Vaifale was the aggressor and not the other way around.  The challenge to the Police Summary as to the machete is rejected.
5. 	Mr Vaifale might be better served focussing on the fact that he hit the victim twice.  The first blow caused the victim to fall off his chair and onto the floor.  The second blow was delivered whilst the victim was on the ground.  Even if Mr Vaifale’s recollection is correct, which I reject, it seems to me that the first strike occurred when there was no threat to Mr Vaifale’s safety as Mr Vaifale threw the machete elsewhere in the room, and going on with it with a second blow whilst the defendant was lying on the ground seems to be a disproportionate response to the alleged provocation.  These are issues that need to be addressed.    
6. 	I direct the matter should be called in the Criminal Mentions list on 28 July 2025 for the allocation of a sentencing date, before me.  A copy of the Summary of Facts must be provided to Probation Services to assist them with the preparation of the pre-sentence report.  Prosecution is to obtain a Victim Impact Report.
CHIEF JUSTICE