SAMOA YOUTH COURT
POLICE v FG [2015] WSYC 3

Case name: 	Police v FG	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSYC 3	
		
Decision date: 	3 July 2015	
		
Parties: 	Police (informant) and FG (young person) male of Satuimalufilufi	
		
Hearing date(s): 	4 June 2015	
		
File number(s): 	D707/15, D708/15, D709/15, D710/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Youth Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Judge Mata Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The charges of sexual connection by way of oral sex and the alternative charge of indecent assault in relation to the 7 year old victim, M.S are hereby dismissed by the court.

I hereby find the young person, F.G guilty of the offence of sexual connection by way of oral sex involving the 6 year old victim, I.S.  

There is no need to deal with the alternative charge of indecent assault regarding I.S.	
		
Representation: 	L Su’a-Mailo for Informant
A Su’a for Young Person

Catchwords: 	Sexual connection – unlawful sexual connection – sexual violation – maximum penalty – circumstances of indecency – indecent assault – sentence 	
		
Words and phrases:	decline application to transfer	
		
Legislation cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1972 s.86 s.111.	
		
Cases cited:	Police v B [2008] WSSC 85	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

P  O  L  I  C  E
Informant

A N D

F.G of Satuimalufilufi
Young Person

Counsel:
Ms L Su’a-Mailo of Attorney General’s Office for the Informant
Mr A Su’a for the Young Person

Date:	3 July 2015
DECISION OF JUDGE TUATAGALOA
[Reasons for Declining to Reserve a Question of Law to the Supreme Court]
1.	The Attorney General filed an application by way of Memorandum to have the proceedings against the young person, F.G transferred to the Supreme Court upon the ground that the offence by which this young person is charged with carries a life imprisonment term. As such, it must be dealt with by way of assessor trial pursuant to section 86 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972.
2.	 After the Court had declined the application to transfer, the Attorney General filed an application to reserve the following question of law by way of s.111 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972 for determination by the Supreme  Court:
“ Should the defended hearing of a youth charged with an offence that attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment be transferred to the Supreme Court so that a trial with assessors can take place.”
3.	I also decline this application by the Attorney General. For the sake of not repeating myself, the reasons provided in my written decision for declining the transfer of these proceedings to the Supreme Court are the same reasons for declining this application by the Attorney General and I adopt them here. I, however would like to emphasise two things: 
i.	On the issue of jurisdiction, Counsel for the Informant is referred to the case of Police v B [2008] WSSC 85 (6 October 2008) by His Honour the 
Chief Justice; 
ii.	Of equal importance is the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply to the Young Offenders Act (except s.22(5)). As such, I do not have the jurisdiction to reserve any question of law for the determination of the Supreme Court.

JUDGE MATA KELI TUATAGALOA