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

Police v Esau [2013] WSSC 79 (30 September 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Esau [2013] WSSC 79

Case name: Police v Esau

Citation: [2013] WSSC 79

Decision date: 30 September 2013

Parties:
POLICE (prosecution) and FAATALI LEAOANIU ESAU female of Toamua (accused)

Hearing date(s):

File number(s): S1604/13

Jurisdiction: CRIMINAL

Place of delivery: MULINUU

Judge(s): CHIEF JUSTICE PATU FALEFATU SAPOLU

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Su’a for prosecution
Accused in person

Catchwords:

Sentence,

Words and phrases:
actual bodily harm with intent,

Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINU’U

FILE NO: S1604/13

BETWEEN

P O L I C E

Prosecution

A N D

FAATALI LEAOANIU ESAU female of Toamua.

Accused

Counsel: L Su’a for prosecution

Accused in person

Sentence: 30 September 2013

S E N T E N C E

1. The accused who is a 24 year old mother from the village of Toamua appears for sentence on the charge of causing actual harm with intent to the victim who is a 38 year old mother from the same village contrary to s.118 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013. The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years imprisonment. To the charge the accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
2. What happened was that a fight took place between the accused’s daughter and the victim’s daughter, as the accused told the probation service. Then on Monday 22 February 2013 the accused saw the victim’s daughter and called out to her to go and eat the backside of the victim’s husband. The victim’s daughter cried and went and told her mother about what the accused had said to her. Apparently, what the accused had said was too much for the victim’s daughter to bear.
3. On the following morning 23 February 2013, the victim went to drop off her daughter at school. She stopped by at the accused’s house. She asked the accused why she said those words to her daughter. The accused was not happy about the victim asking her. So a verbal argument ensued between the two women. The victim then walked away from the accused’s home but that did not stop the accused. She continued to yell out to the victim. This made the victim turn around and called out to the accused as to what she was saying. Both women were apparently very angry at each other.
4. At that time the accused was walking towards the victim holding a stone. When she reached the victim she pulled her hair. A fight then ensued between the two women. The accused’s sister who was present came over and held the victim’s hands behind her back and while the victim’s head was bent down the accused hit the back of the victim‘s head with the stone she was holding. This resulted in a laceration to the back of the victim’s head. When the victim looked up, the accused hit her face with the stone causing a cut and a bruise on the victim’s left eyebrow. The people of the village who saw what was happening intervened and stopped the fight.
5. The victim was taken to the hospital where her injuries were treated. For the next two weeks she could not perform her usual domestic chores because of the pain from her injuries.
6. According to the victim impact report, the accused’s father has already apologised to the family of the victim. This matter must therefore have been settled between the two families.
7. The accused is a first offender. The testimonial from the Morman bishop of her church shows the accused to have been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.
8. The aggravating features of this offending are the use by the accused of a stone to hit the victim twice resulting in injuries to the victim and the sister of the accused joining in and held the hands of the victim while she was being assaulted by the accused. The accused’s conduct was also provocative as she had told the victim’s daughter to go and eat the backside of the victim’s husband. On the other hand, the mitigating features personal to the accused are the fact that she is a first offender and had been a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence as well as her plea of guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity. The victim’s father has also apologised to the family of the victim and this matter has been settled between the two families.
9. After considering all the relevant circumstances, I have decided to convict and fine the accused $300 to be payable in 7 days, in default, 3 months imprisonment.
10. This incident arose from a trivial matter which was a fight between the daughter of the accused and the daughter of the victim. It should have been resolved peacefully by the parents talking to each other. The days of resolving disputes by fights or physical violence must now be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, even though we call ourselves Christians trivial incidents as the one in this case have sometimes ended in violence by the involvement of parents. I must warn the accused that this should not happen again. If she reappears before the Courts on a similar incident in the future then she will run the real risk of going to prison.
    

CHIEF JUSTICE

Solicitor
Attorney-General’s Office, Apia for prosecution