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

Police v Talataina [2010] WSSC 18 (6 April 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

FALANISISI SATANO TALATAINA
male of Vaitele-uta
Defendant

Presiding Judge: Justice Vaai

Counsel: M Lemisio for the prosecution
D Clarke for the defendant

Sentence: 6 April 2010

SENTENCE

1. The defendant was found guilty by a panel of assessors of the charge of manslaughter. The victim in his offending was his de facto wife. I accept from the facts before the court that there was no premeditation in the offending.

2. At the time of the offending, the defendant and his wife were living at Vaitele where the offence took place. In the afternoon of the day of the incident, he was making a umu and the food were not well cooked and his late wife made fun of him.

3. What started off as a jovial enterprise arising from the uncooked umu food turned sour with disastrous, unintended and unwanted results. As a result the wife ran away and she fell over and she also swore at the defendant. He lost his temper; he went over and kicked her twice around the head area while she was on the ground after her heavy fall.

4. I also accept that he immediately felt remorse and took care of his wife. But he kept her home without taking her to the hospital for medical care. I accept that part of the reason why he was keeping her home was to hide his criminal offending. It was only after her family had discovered the seriousness of her illness that they came to his home and took the victim to the hospital but it was too late. Although the incident for which his wife lost her life was short and swift, it was nonetheless violent.

5. His reaction to the victim’s rudeness far exceeded the provocative conduct of the victim. Although he may have been provoked, his conduct was nonetheless blameworthy and culpable. The two kicks towards her head were violent, aggressive and brutal.

6. The purpose of sentencing for offences involving violence must always be deterrence. You cannot escape a custodial sentence. Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating features of the offending, I set 6 ½ years as a starting point. You showed true remorse immediately after the incident and I deduct 12 months for that. You are also described as a first offender, this is at the age of 40; for that I deduct another 12 months. You will serve 4 ½ years imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI