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

Police v Solomona [2025] WSSC 97 (9 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Solomona [2025] WSSC 97 (9 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P O L I C E

Informant

A N D:

IVA TOVIA SOLOMONA AKA IVA SOLOMONA AUMUA male of Salelesi, Levi Saleimoa, Leonē and Falealupo

Accused

Counsels: Mr. P. Paramore & Ms. R. Fong for Prosecution
Accused appears in Person

Sentence: 9 October 2025

SENTENCE

The Charges

1. You appear for sentence today for two separate and unrelated offending:
   • (i) For the first offending which occurred on 27 October 2023, you were charged and pleaded guilty to the following:
     • (a) Intentional damage contrary to section 184(1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years upon conviction;
     • (b) Endangering Transport contrary to section 185 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years upon conviction;
     • (c) Throwing Stones contrary to section 26 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year upon conviction; and
     • (d) Armed with a Dangerous Weapon contrary to section 25 of the Police Offences Ordinance 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year upon conviction.
   • (ii) The second offending occurred between 28 June 2025 and 1 July 2025, where you were charged and plead guilty to:
     • (a) Burglary, contrary to section 174 of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years upon conviction; and
     • (b) Theft, contrary to section 161 and 165(c) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years upon conviction.

First Offending

2. According to the Summary of Facts dated 26 March 2024, the victim was operating an Excavator Hyundai 210-9 at Levi Saleimoa on 27 October 2023 at around 11am when you walked past the excavator, armed yourself with a rock and threw it at the excavator. The rock hit and shattered the rear windscreen of the excavator before the rock hit the victim on his back.
3. The total cost of the damage to the rear windscreen amounted to ST$12,500.
4. You fled the scene but after investigations conducted by police, you were finally arrested on 2 February 2024 and charged accordingly.

Second Offending

5. The second offending is separate and unrelated to the first offending. According to the Summary of Facts dated 4 August 2025, between 28 June 2025 and 30 June 2025 at Savalalo, you opened the window of the victim’s fishing vessel “the Yellow Fin” and entered without authority. You stole 2 fishing antennas valued at ST$450 each, the total value of the stolen antennas equalling ST$900.
6. You fled from the boat and exchanged the antennas for fish from another fisherman. After investigations conducted by police, you were apprehended, arrested and charged.

The Background of the Accused

7. You are a single 20-year-old male of Salelesi, Levi Saleimoa, Leonē and Falealupo. According to your pre-sentence report dated 17 September 2025, you were living with your family at Levi, Saleimoa at the time of both offending. When you were arrested for the second offending, you had been assisting your family financially through your employment as a fisherman on one of the fishing boats. You told probation that you were under the influence of marijuana when you offended the second time.
8. Although you do not have a prior conviction record, when you reoffending the second time, there was an active warrant of arrest issued against you when you failed to attend to the Alcohol and Drugs Court (“ADC”) Programme in November 2024. You also have another matter pending in the District Court which will not be addressed in this decision.

The Victim

9. The first victim of your offending is the owner of the excavator. In his victim impact report he expressed his disappointment due to the damage you caused through your actions. He stated that you have made no attempt to apologise or repay the damage you caused to his excavator.
10. The second victim is the owner of the fishing vessel. He expressed his disappointment as the antennas which were returned were damaged and unusable. He expressed his concern for the security and safety of his fishing vessel as a result of your actions. Moreover, he stated that you have made no attempt to apologise or to repay the costs of the damaged antennas.

Aggravating Features of the Offending

11. For the first offending, the aggravating features include:
    • (i) The unprovoked attack;
    • (ii) The financial cost of the damage to the rear windscreen of the excavator and the impact this had on the owner;
    • (iii) The reckless disregard for the safety of the operator of the excavator; and
    • (iv) Use of a rock in the offending.
12. For the second offending, the aggravating features include:
    • (i) The high prevalence of burglary and theft in the community;
    • (ii) Premeditation. There was a level of planning involved;
    • (iii) The total costs of the damaged antennas as well as the impact it had on the operations of the owner of the vessel; and
    • (iv) The involvement of marijuana as mentioned in your pre-sentence report.
13. There are no mitigating features in respect of your offending.

Aggravating Features in respect of the Offender

14. The only aggravating factor for you as an offender is you re-offending whilst an active warrant of arrest had been issued against you for your first offending, due to your failure to turn up and complete the ADC programme.

Mitigating Factors in respect of the Offender

15. The following mitigating factor apply to you personally:
    • (i) Your age. You are only 20 years old;
    • (ii) You are a first offended despite your two separate matters;
    • (iii) You did enter early guilty pleas for both offending; and
    • (iv) Although you did not or were not able to apologise to the victims for your offending, you have apologised to the Court for your actions and you are now remorseful, especially since you were taken back into custody to await the decision for your matters.

Discussion

16. The original sentencing memorandums submitted in relation to each of your offending, when considered independently, suggest that a non-custodial sentence may be appropriate. However, it must be noted that those cases referred to in the memorandums involved significant mitigating factors, including provocation, reconciliation between parties, expressions of apology and restitution, successful completion of court-directed programmes, and the imposition of village-based penalties. These factors played a substantial role in the courts’ decisions to impose non-custodial outcomes.^[1]
17. The amended sentencing memorandum dated 8 October 2025 which was only provided before sentencing, addresses the cumulative impact of both offending committed by you. Prosecution no longer recommend a non-custodial sentence but instead request a starting point of 1-year imprisonment. In light of this recommendation, it is important and necessary to assess the totality of the offending and determine whether a custodial sentence is warranted to reflect the seriousness of your conduct.
18. Although you have been charged with intentional damage, endangering transport, throwing stones, and being armed with a dangerous weapon for the 2023 incident, it is evident from the summary of facts that these charges stem from a single act—namely, your action of throwing a stone at the excavator. The charges of intentional damage and endangering transport are the most serious and sufficiently encompass the conduct underlying the lesser charges. However, in accordance with relevant sentencing principles, you cannot be punished twice for the same act. Therefore, only one of the more serious charges will be considered for sentencing.
19. In relation to the second offending, namely burglary and theft, it is noted that such offences continue to rise within our community, posing a significant threat to the safety and security of families and their property. The courts have consistently expressed concern over the prevalence of this type of offending and the detrimental impact on those affected.^[2]
20. Upon reviewing the file and the pre-sentence report, it is noted that in 2024, following your initial offending, you were offered the opportunity to attend the ADC programme. Your matter was referred to the District Court for monitoring, with the expectation that, if successfully completed, sentencing would proceed in the District Court under section 5A(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2016. Completion of the programme would likely have resulted in a non-custodial sentence. Unfortunately, you failed to attend and complete the ADC programme, and in June of this year, you re-offended before you were sentenced for your earlier matter.
21. Given the two separate offending and the non-compliance with the earlier conditions imposed by the Courts, a non- custodial sentence is no longer an option.
22. In sentencing you today, it is with the purpose of denouncing your conduct and deterring you and others from committing similar offending as well as to protect the community from you.^[3] Hopefully, you will reflect on your actions and take this opportunity to turn over a new leaf upon completion of your sentence.

Sentencing

23. In relation to the burglary and theft charges for the offending on 28 June this year, I accept the recommendation of prosecution and find that the appropriate start point for sentence is 1 year or 12 months’ imprisonment. I deduct 2 months or 8 weeks for your first offender status and the apology to the Court. I further deduct 2 ½ months or 10 weeks for your guilty plea. This leaves a balance of 7 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.
24. As to the offending that occurred in 2023, I take as the lead charge the charge of Endangering Transport. In consideration of all the aggravating and mitigating factors, I find that 3 months’ imprisonment is a sufficient sentence. As to the charges of intentional damage, throwing stones and armed with a dangerous weapon, these charges are dismissed for the reasons I explained earlier in this decision.

Result

25. Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced for the charges in the Charging Document dated 28 July 2025 as follows:
    • (i) For the charge of Burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to 7 months and two weeks’ imprisonment less time remanded in custody; and
    • (ii) For the charge of Theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrent to the burglary charge above.
26. In relation to the Charging Document dated 16 February 2024 for the offending on 27 October 2023:
    • (i) For the charge of Endangering Transport, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrent to the burglary and theft charges; and

(ii) All the other remaining charges are dismissed.

27. Consequently, your end sentence for all the charges will be 7 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment less any time remanded in custody.

JUSTICE KERSLAKE

^[1] In relation to the Endangering Transport charge – see Police v I'a [2018] WSSC 79 (30 May 2018) & Police v Lolesio [2024] WSSC 54 (16 July 2024). In relation to the burglary and theft charges – see Police v Tovia [2013] WSSC 64; Police v Ajawas [2013] WSSC 49; Police v Patrick Saleupolu & Anor [2016] WSSC 21; Police v Mani Kopa [2024] WSSC 33 (30 May 2024) & Police v Ieti [2024] WSSC 18.
^[2] Police v Faaleleiga [2024] WSSC 103 (7 October 2024) per Clarke J, Police v Sula Siaosi aka Joe Siaosi (Unreported) 02/08/2024 per Nelson J; Police v Ulisone [2024] WSSC 32 per Clarke J; Police v Seumanutafa [2020] WSSC 52) per Nelson J.
^[3] See Police v Siaosi [2024] WSSC 6 (2 August 2024) per Nelson J; Police v Sakalaka [2019] WSSC 93 (2 August 2019) per Nelson J & Police v Maka [2023] WSSC 78 (24 October 2023) per Roma J.