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

Police v Valeli [2012] WSSC 98 (19 November 2012)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Valeli [2012] WSSC 98

Case name: Police v Valeli

Citation: [2012] WSSC 98

Decision date: 19 November 2012

Parties:
Police v Victor Valeli

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Nelson J

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:
Ms F Vaai for prosecution
Mrs R Drake for defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND

VICTOR VALELI

Defendant

Counsel: Ms F Vaai for prosecution

Mrs R Drake for defendant

Sentence: 19 November 2012

SENTENCE

The prosecution summary of facts states that there are two counts of carnal knowledge against the defendant. But the court file only has one count. I therefore am going to proceed to sentence him on the basis that there is only one count of carnal knowledge against him. That is charge number S1644/12 stating that carnal knowledge occurred as between the defendant and complainant at Vaitele-uta on 25th September 2012. In view of the young ages of the both the parties in this matter I will issue an order suppressing publication of the details of both the defendant and the complainant.

The defendant is a 17 year old student living at home with his parents. He has good references from his teachers. I am told he is hoping to go to the National University of Samoa next year. And that he has aspirations of becoming a lawyer. He comes from a good family and background as outlined in the probation office pre-sentence report. His counsel describes him as a quiet unassuming young man who is remorseful for his actions. The complainant is a 15 year old school girl of the same college as the defendant, she is also from a good family who have expressed shock at her involvement in this matter.

At the time of the incident the complainant and the defendant were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship and had been so since about June this year. They have been described as teenagers in love. It seems that they kept their relationship a secret from both their parents. The complainants victim impact report states that she lost her virginity to the defendant when they had consensual sexual relations. And that she is in love with the defendant and is still currently dating him. Further that the complainants father confirms this.

According to the summary of facts the carnal knowledge occurred at the defendants house one afternoon after school. The defendants father was then on an overseas trip and the mother had no idea the defendant had sneaked his girlfriend into his room. She was surprised when the police arrived the next day and found the complainant still there. A full reconciliation has been carried out in this matter. I am told that both sets of parents are happy for the relationship to continue minus the sex until they complete their schooling. A formal and appropriate apology by the defendant and his parents has also been accepted by the complainants parents.

I agree with counsel for the defendant, this is a case of two young people in a rush to express their feelings sexually. They are not the first or the last young lovers to fall into this trap. The question to ponder is whether any public interest would be served by imposing an imprisonment penalty on the defendant.

In my view having regard to the circumstances of your case the public interest would not be served by sending you to prison for what you did. But listen to me very carefully young man. If you want to be a lawyer this is not the way to start your legal career. You have to exercise some patience because there is merit in the old saying that good things come to those who wait. E te toe faia se mea faapea Victor? (defendant said no). Ua maua se lesona aoga mo oe i le mataupu lenei? (defendant said yes). I am also conscious as the defendants counsel has pointed out of the effect a criminal conviction would have on the defendant and his possible career prospects.

I therefore propose to do the following: I will discharge the defendant without conviction pursuant to section 104 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the following conditions - firstly your parents will pay on your behalf police costs of $50, probation office costs of $50, court costs of $250. These costs are to be paid by this time 4:00pm tomorrow. If the costs are not paid by then you are to be brought back to the court for re-sentencing. But assuming the costs will be paid in due course the order of the court is that you thereupon be discharged without conviction as per above.

.........................

JUSTICE NELSON