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

Police v DCW [2016] WSYC 1 (22 April 2016)

YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA
Police v DCW [2016] WSYC 1

YOUTH COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN

POLICE
Informant

AND

DCW, male of Malifa
Young Person

Counsel: Mr A. Tumua for National Prosecution Office
Mr P.T. Mulitalo for Young Person

Sentence: 22 April 2016

SENTENCE BY JUDGE ROMA

Charge

1. You appear for sentence on one charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a knuckle metal (s25 Police Offences Ordinance 1961). The maximum penalty is 1 year imprisonment.
2. At the earliest opportunity, you pleaded guilty to the charge on 31 March 2016.

Offending

3. On 21 March 2016, following a recent school brawl between Avele College and St Joseph’s College, the Police conducted a special operation at the Savalalo market involving a random search of students and their school bags.
4. Around 4 to 5pm, police stopped a bus in which students from Avele College were travelling. You were on the bus.
5. On your way out, you told a police officer that another officer had already checked your bag. The officer grabbed your bag, searched it and found a metal brass knuckle.
6. You were taken in by Police and charged.

Accused Young Person

7. You are 13 years of age. You live at Malifa and attend Avele College.
8. According to Counsel, you also help out in your family’s small bakery business.

Aggravating Factor(s)

9. Your attempt to conceal the object, especially telling the police that you had already been searched when in fact you had not, is in my view an aggravating factor.
10. Counsel says that the object had always been in your bag and suggests that you did not just put it inside because of the recent brawl between schools. But the prosecution summary which you accept clearly says that you did attempt to conceal the object and told police that your bag had already been checked by another officer.

Mitigating Factors

Offending

11. In respect of your offending, Counsel submits that this was at the lowest end of the scale because you had the object in your possession for a while and well before the brawls. He says that you and your friends had been playing with the object at school in a game that involved its use to magnetize coins. I do not see how that is a game, and one played by youths your age.
12. I doubt also that you had the object in your bag by coincidence, as your Counsel suggests, especially after the much publicized brawl between your school and Leififi College.
13. In saying that, I am also not satisfied that you intended to use the object to cause anyone harm or injury, and I take that into account in mitigation of penalty.

Offender

14. I take into account your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
15. I also take into account your personal circumstances. You are 13 years and like most youths, still attending school. You have a big future ahead of you. You have appeared for the first time in Court, and hopefully by experiencing the criminal process, with being taken in by police, charged and appearing in Court, you have realised and learnt that this is not a place you want to keep finding yourself in the future.
16. Simply, you have wasted valuable time that you could have spent on doing something more useful.

Penalty

17. In passing sentence, I am guided by the Young Offenders Act 2007, which amongst other principles, promotes rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons in the community.
18. Also helpful are previous relevant sentences of this Court.
19. In its sentencing memorandum, prosecution refers to 2 previous sentences in similar offences, where the accused were convicted and handed suspended sentences of 6 months.
20. These 2 cases are not helpful. Firstly, they were family violence matters. Secondly, the accused in both cases were not young persons. In fact, the prosecution’s memorandum says that the accused in those cases were 45 years and 42 years respectively.
21. Your counsel submits that the Court exercises its discretion under s104 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1972 in favour of a discharge without conviction. The approach in considering an application for such is to assess firstly, the gravity of your offending, secondly, the consequences of a conviction on you and finally, whether the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of your offending. (see Police v Papalii and Moalele [2011] WSSC 132 (25 November 2011).
22. But s15 of the Young Offenders Act 2007 also allows this Court, instead of convicting a young person, to order compliance with conditions within a period of 6 months. In the circumstances of your case, I do not find that course appropriate.
23. I am satisfied that your offending is at the lower end of the scale and that the consequences of entering a conviction against your name at this young age would be out of proportion to the gravity of your offending.

Sentence

24. For the above reasons, you are discharged without conviction.

JUDGE FEPULEAI A ROMA