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

Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 87 (3 September 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 87 (3 September 2025)

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: F. Tiafau for Prosecution
A. Su’a for the Defendant

Sentence: 3 September 2025

S E N T E N C E

1. Through the submissions of his lawyer, the Defendant, in an effort to distance himself from the events at issue seems to have forgotten that someone lost their life, and that although he did not intend to kill the deceased, he nevertheless delivered the blow that led to the deceased’s death. The fact that the Defendant by his lawyer says, “We concede the offending is serious given the punishment of manslaughter...” shows a remarkable lack of insight. Mr Sepetio, the offending is serious because someone died. The gravity of the offending is serious. The Court does not and will never lose sight of the fact that someone has died.
2. You have come to this court for sentence on a charge to which you have pleaded guilty – that on 12 January 2024 at Samalaeulu, you, by an unlawful act namely assault, caused the death of Manuele Tionesio, male of Tuasivi and Fogapoa, thereby committing the crime of Manslaughter. The killing of a human being by another, whether directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever is what is known as a homicide. A Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable. A Homicide is culpable when, as in this case, it consists in the killing of any person by an unlawful act. You have pleaded guilty to committing unlawful act: namely, assault which killed the deceased.
3. It is necessary for the purposes of sentencing to refer to the Police summary of the facts, and my 17 July 2025 judgement^[1] in relation to your challenge to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Police’s summary.
4. Despite the terms of the 17 July 2025 judgement, you continue to argue that you were provoked to act as you did. I do not accept this submission. It is difficult to see how you were provoked to take the actions that you did when in fact he was not holding the machete, you had obviously taken possession of the machete off the deceased and threw it across the room. There was no threat to you, and it was after you threw the machete across the room that you then proceeded to assault the deceased. In your lawyer’s submissions he says your intention was to cause the victim to sleep or become unconscious. Your lawyer submits that this act of punching the deceased twice, firstly to the ground from his seated position, and the second whilst he was on the ground, is an action that any reasonable person would do in the defence of their family. I unequivocally reject Mr Su’a’s submission as lacking any merit.
5. It was not reasonable for you, acting on what others told you, to confront the deceased in this manner and then assault him with such force that whilst seated, he fell backwards, and for good measure you decided to hit him again while he was on the ground. Your actions where those of an angry person acting on the alleged disrespect to your family, and not someone who was trying to defend his family’s honour. That kind of behaviour is not a normal way of settling disputes and is not tolerated by this court.
6. Though Mr Su’a in his submissions paints a bleak picture of the victim, those submissions have no basis and are not supported by the summary of the facts.
7. I consider that given your remarkable lack of insight into your offending, your attempt to shift some blame to the victim, that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable. Your lawyer also appears to accept that a prison sentence is inevitable (refer para 23), but he asks for a lesser time in prison.
8. I am urged to give you a further discount for the ifoga performed by your village, to which your family contributed. This may be considered in mitigation and is provided for under s. 9 of the Sentencing Act 2016. An ifoga, which might attract the court’s careful consideration must be a genuine attempt to engage in a restorative justice process with the victim’s family. It is about you, the defendant, and your family offering up your genuine and unconditional apology to the family of the victim for the harm that has been caused. This may involve money or money’s worth, but it must include genuine remorse, something that is not apparent from the material before me about the ifoga performed by the village. The apology must be to the victim’s immediate family, such as the victim’s spouse, partner, children, parents and perhaps siblings. Often when a person who provides for the family has been killed or permanently injured, there are very serious economic consequences. Quite apart from the costs of the funeral, school fees may still need to be paid, bread and other necessities need to be provided. The deceased’s wife advises that she is aware that the defendant’s parents have attended on the deceased’s parents, whom, to their great credit have extended to the defendant and his family their forgiveness, and, further, the deceased’s parents have given money towards the costs of the funeral. However, the deceased’s wife says that no ifoga has been offered to her and her children – which is that s. 9 requires.
9. Having said that, the performance of an ifoga is required to be considered under s.8 of the Village Fono Act 1990. That section provides that when a punishment has been imposed by a village fono in respective village misconduct by any person and that person is convicted by a court of a crime or offence in respect of the same matter, the court shall take into account in mitigation of sentence the punishment imposed by the Village fono.
10. Section 8 of the Village Fono Act, applies to conduct or behaviour, which is or has been traditionally punished by the village of that village in accordance with its custom and usage. There is no evidence before me that the charge of manslaughter, as defined under the Crimes Act 2013, has been punished by the village in accordance with its custom and usage.
11. Taking all these matters into consideration, I do not consider that a sentence reduction on account of the village-to-village ifoga is appropriate.
12. Standing back from the evidence and the facts of this case to consider matters overall, I note the defendant was 21 years of age at the time of the offending. Though he seems to be in denial about the gravity of what he has done, nevertheless I consider his age a mitigating factor, perhaps the lack of insight is a function of his youth. He has no prior history. His Parish priest speaks well of him as a cheerful and active member of the youth group, and he is reliable, responsible, trustworthy and hardworking. I consider it appropriate to give him a further 25% sentence reduction on account of his young age and previous good conduct.
13. Again, standing back from the facts, to determine the defendant’s culpability, it appears to me that these tragic events arose out of the defendant being stoked with strong anger from perceived disrespects, then acting immaturely on impulse hitting a virtually defenceless man. These matters have led to the fatal outcome. It is a tragic outcome all around, and that includes the defendant, because as you grow older and wiser you will come to realise your role in someone’s death, and that, together for a record of conviction for manslaughter, will be a burden you will carry for life.
14. Before I pass sentence, I am going to adjourn for a period of 4 weeks. Within that time the defendant has an opportunity to perform an ifoga to the victim’s wife and children, and I will want a report from the victim’s wife to confirm that has taken place and her response to the ifoga. I counsel the defendant to recognise what has happened, and take responsibility for your actions. The sentence that I will finally pass is literally in your and your family’s hands. I also urge Mr Su’a to prepare submissions as to how your anger issues may be managed and or treated, as part of a rehabilitation program.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE

^[1] Police v Sepetio [2025] WSSC 86.