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

Police v Epati [2013] WSSC 98 (22 July 2013)

SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

Police v Epati [2013] WSSC 98

Case name: Police v Epati

Citation: [2013] WSSC 98

Decision date: 22 July 2013
Parties:
POLICE v FITU EPATI, male of Vaimoso and Fogatuli Savaii

Hearing date(s):

File number(s):

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Place of delivery: Mulinuu

Judge(s): Justice Nelson

On appeal from:

Order:
Representation:
L Taimalelagi for prosecution

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Crimes Act 2013
Police Offence Ordinance 1961

Cases cited:

Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE

Prosecution

AND:

FITU EPATI, male of Vaimoso and Fogatuli Savaii.
Defendant

Counsel: L Taimalelagi for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 22 July 2013

SENTENCE

The police summary of facts which the defendant admits states the following: he is 48 years of age, he is from Vaimoso and Fogatuli in Savaii. He is currently employed as a groundsman and is married with seven children. Like most Samoan men he supports his immediate as well as his extended family. The complainant is a 33 year old male also of Vaimoso and Saleaumua. He told the court this morning that he is the first cousin of the defendant.

The police summary states that on the morning of Wednesday 12 June this year at about 8:00 am the complainant was working on his land at Vaimoso. He was replacing the rotten poles of a fence. This fence marked the boundary between the complainants land and the defendants land.

On the defendants side of the fence are some pandana plants or “laufala”. As the complainant was working the defendant approached him with a bush knife. He told the complainant that the posts of the fence were in the wrong place. And that the posts were damaging his laufala plants. The complainant explained he was just putting the new posts into the holes occupied by the old posts. The two men got into an argument leading to the defendant striking the victim with the bush knife once in the neck and once on the back. The incident was broken up and onlookers took the complainant to his house and later to the hospital.

The following injuries were noted on the complainant: Superficial lacerations on the left side of the neck and back; no bleeding but the injuries were consistent with that from a sharp object. The police summary of facts goes on to state that after the incident the defendant went back to the boundary and pushed over all the posts that the victim had put up.

The following day Thursday, 13 June the defendant was apprehended by the police and charged with one count of causing injury pursuant to section 119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013 and one count of armed with a dangerous weapon under the Police Offences Ordinance section 25. When these matters were first called for mention the defendant pleaded guilty to both charges.

The defendant is not a first offender. His list of previous convictions which he has admitted includes a conviction in 2008 for throwing stones. And in 2012 for assault, insulting words, threatening words and armed with a dangerous weapon. In that case also a sapelu. On both those occasions in 2008 and 2012 the defendant was spared imprisonment. He received suspended sentences and a monetary penalty.

Unfortunately Fitu did not learn anything constructive from those two appearances. There is no question that his use of a lethal weapon in this case a sapelu to strike the complainant on the back of the neck and on the back coupled with his previous convictions for offences of violence means an imprisonment term must be imposed for this offending. To deter the defendant from resorting to violence in future and to send a message to the public that if you use dangerous weapons in this fashion you will likely receive a prison sentence.

The maximum for the offence of causing injury is 7 years in prison. For the other offence of armed with a dangerous weapon it is 1 year in prison. But Fitu I take into account that the injuries to the complainant as confirmed by him to the court this morning were superficial. He told the court that the wounds were not deep, no stitches were required and he was not kept in hospital. He was treated and discharged. It shows that there was no real force behind your strikes.

I also take into consideration the circumstances of the offending. Some of which are referred in the prosecution sentencing memorandum. The maximum penalty is 7 years but an appropriate penalty having regard to all these factors would be 12 months or 1 year in prison. That must be upgraded because of your previous convictions for violent offending to 24 months or 2 years in prison.

For your guilty plea which has saved the courts time and limited resources; plus I accept the fact that you are remorseful for this offending and you have settled this matter with your cousin; and taking into consideration the fact that he appeared personally in court this morning and petitioned for the courts leniency; because of all those factors Fitu I will reduce that 24 months in half to 12 months.

On the offence of causing injury you will be convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison. On the second charge of armed with a dangerous weapon you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 months in prison, term to be served concurrent to your 12 months.

In respect of the other charges against you from 2012 for which you received as I have said a suspended sentence. And was suspended for 2 years on condition you do not reoffend. Because you have reoffended within 2 years of that date you must now be referred back to the sentencing judge of the District Court to be sentenced on those charges. I therefore direct that you be referred for mention in that court on the 6th of August 2013 on informations D1292/12 insulting words, D1293/12 of assault, D1294/12 threatening words, D1295/12 of insulting words, D1296/12 of armed with a dangerous weapon and D1297/12 of threatening words.

.........................
JUSTICE NELSON