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

Police v Leifi [2005] WSSC 25 (17 November 2005)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN

POLICE
Prosecution

AND

SEMO LEIFI,
aka Onesemo male of Sale’aaumua
Accused

Counsel: K Koria and P Chang for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 17 November 2005

SENTENCE

The Charge

The accused is charged under s.79 of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 with the offence of having wilfully and without lawful justification caused grievous bodily harm which carries a maximum penalty of seven (7) years imprisonment. To the charge the accused has entered a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The offending

On Saturday, 30 April 2005 the accused was at his plantation at the village of Saleaumua, Aleipata, where he is residing with his wife and three young children. When the accused returned from his plantation, his young son, according to what the accused told the probation service, came running to him crying. He observed bruises on his son’s chest. When he asked his son what had happened, his son told him that other kids including the victim had thrown stones at him. The accused then approached the victim and his friends. The victim’s friends ran away while the accused grabbed hold of the victim’s arm. The victim was scared and cried out that it was one of his friends who threw the stones at the accused’s son. The accused ignored the victim’s cry and punched the victim’s left eye with his left hand on which he was wearing a ring. The victim’s left eye started bleeding but the accused again punched the victim’s forehead causing the victim to faint.

Aftermath of the offending

As it appears from the victim impact assessment report prepared by the probation service, the victim was still unconscious when he was taken to the hospital. He only regained consciousness at the hospital. He was also still bleeding from his left eye when he was taken to the hospital. For four days he was not able to open his left eye. For a whole week he was in great pain. He also cried for that whole week and had great difficulty falling asleep at night. The top of his left eye was fractured.

The doctor who first examined the victim referred him to an eye specialist. The eye specialist advised the family of the victim that the victim’s left eyesight has been affected by the fracture and the bleeding. The victim was required to attend to the eye specialist every two days from May to August which was costly to the victim’s family in terms of bus fares. From the time this incident occurred on 30 April 2005 to August 2005, the victim was not able to attend school. He is also now too scared to go out and play with other children of his village.

In August the victim was prescribed by the eye specialist with two pairs of glasses to assist his sight on the left eye. One pair of glasses is for distance viewing and the other pair of glasses is for use by the victim when he reads or does his studies. When the glasses are taken off, the victim would not be able to see with his left eye.

The victim

The victim is now eleven (11) years old. He was ten (10) years old at the time of this incident. He attends the Saleaaumua Primary School as a student. He is from the same village of Saleaaumua, Aleipata, as the accused.

The accused

The accused is a thirty four year old male. He is married with three (3) children between the age of nine years and the age of four (4) years. He is a qualified school teacher and has been a school teacher for ten years. He is currently a school teacher at the Ti’avea Primary School.

As it appears from the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service, the accused told the probation service that when he returned home from his plantation his young son came running to him crying. When he asked his son what had happened, his son said that other kids including the victim threw stones at him. The accused saw bruises on his son’s chest. He then walked to where the other kids and the victim were but the other kids ran away. Out of anger, he says he slapped the victim on the eye causing injury from the ring he was wearing on one of his fingers.

The accused went four times to the parents of the victim to apologise for his actions and what has happened to the victim. On each of those occasions the victim’s parents refused to accept the accused’s apology. However, when this matter was called for sentencing, the victim’s mother appeared and informed the Court that they have accepted the accused’s apology and the matter has been settled.

It also appears from the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service (and confirmed by the prosecution’s summary of facts) that the accused is a first offender. He is a person of good character and is dedicated to his young children. He also expressed deep remorse to the probation service. The testimonial from the pastor of the accused’s church shows that the accused is honest and faithful and a very active church goer. The accused as earlier mentioned is also the sole income earner for his family. The testimonial from the principal of the Ti’avea Primary School where the accused is a school teacher shows the accused as a humble and patient person and that the principal was shocked when he heard about what had happened. The accused is also mentioned as a reliable and dependable teacher upon whom the school relies.

Mitigating factors

As mitigating factors, I take into account the accused’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, the fact that he is a first offender, and that he is a person of good character. I also bear in mind that what happened was something that occurred on the spur of the moment when the accused’s young son came crying to the accused with bruises on his chest saying that other kids including the victim had thrown stones at him. Whether the victim did actually throw a stone at the accused’s son was denied by the victim when approached by the accused. I also accept that the accused is truly remorseful as it appears from his expression of remorsefulness to the Court, to the probation service, and his repeated apologies to the victim’s family. This matter has also been settled between the accused and the family of the victim. I am certain that what has happened will remain as a lesson to the accused for the rest of his life as it can result in his young family being placed at a serious inconvenience and his job being put at risk.

Aggravating factors

The accused is thirty four years of age and the victim is ten years old at the time of this incident. Even though the victim cried, most probably out of fear, when the accused approached him and called out that it was the other kids who threw the stones at the accused’s son, the accused nonetheless punched the victim on the left eye and on the forehead with his fist on which he was wearing a ring. As a consequence, the victim became unconscious and bleeding from his left eye. I have already referred to the consequences on the victim of the assault by the accused. Most notable is the fact that the victim cannot now see or read with his left eye without the aid of a pair of glasses.

The decision

The circumstances of cases of wilfully and without lawful justification causing grievous bodily harm which have come before the Courts are so varied and diverse that it has not been possible to set a tariff for this kind of cases. The sentences imposed by the Court have depended very much on the circumstances of each case with previous cases providing only general guidance. One thing which can be said with confidence is that this type of case normally attracts a term of imprisonment.

Having considered all the circumstances taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, the accused is convicted and sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE