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

Police v Alauni [2014] WSSC 100 (22 September 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Alauni [2014] WSSC 100

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SILIA ALAUNI male of Sagafili Mulifanua.
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa and Ms Tavita for prosecution
S Wulf for defendant

Sentence: 22 September 2014

SENTENCE

1. The police summary of facts which the defendant through his counsel accepts states that he is a 35 year old male of Sagafili Mulifanua. He faces two charges one of attempted murder and one of causing grievous bodily harm. It arises out of two separate incidents. First incident is in relation to wounding his wife LP, the second is in relation to an attempt made on the life of LPs new partner NP. Given the circumstances of this matter there will issue a suppression order prohibiting publications of the names of the two complainants in this matter.
2. I will deal with the first incident first which relates to the assault on his then partner because that occurred first in time. The police summary says that the accused and LP were married for eight (8) years. They separated in December 2013. In January 2014 LP moved in with her new partner NP. In February 2014 the defendant went to NP’s house to get his wife to return to him. But she refused.
3. The police became involved and LP attended the Afega Police Post on Thursday, 27 February. On arrival at the police post LP saw the defendant was present. Matters were discussed with the police and afterwards LP was outside the police post with her sister in the car park waiting to go home. The defendant approached LP and her sister and ended up having an argument with LPs sister. A police vehicle came to take LP and the sister home. As LP was about to enter the vehicle the defendant pulled her out of the car and struck her in the face with a knife. The police intervened and pulled the defendant away from LP and took her to hospital. She sustained injuries to her face and hand from the assault and subsequently defendant was charged.
4. While this charge was pending before the court the accused was granted bail. It was during this time the second incident involving NP occurred. The summary of facts from the police says that on 15 April 2014 the accused caught a bus to where LP and NP were residing. He obtained a knife from a house in that village. He drank beer while waiting for it to get dark. When it became dark he went armed with the knife to NPs house intending to kill him.
5. He entered the house and saw NP sleeping with his former partner. One of NPs sisters saw him enter and called out to NP. The defendant then attacked NP with the knife and inflicted injuries to his abdomen, fingers and mouth. People intervened and the accused left the house and was subsequently apprehended by the police hence the second charge against the accused of attempted murder.
6. The defendant has a number of previous convictions. So this is not his first court appearance. He has confirmed those previous convictions. While I accept defence counsels submission that they are for unrelated offences they are still relevant because they show a history of offending from 2000 to 2012. They are also relevant because they show the defendant was not of previous good character.
7. Both offences the defendant has pleaded guilty to carry substantial maximum penalties. The maximum for attempted murder is life imprisonment. The maximum for grievous bodily harm is 10 years. There is no question the seriousness of the offending requires imprisonment terms. The real issue is how long is appropriate for the circumstances of this case. I deal firstly with the attempted murder charge.
8. The offending was planned and the defendant was quite deliberate in his actions. Armed with a knife he went to the house of the complainant at night after drinking some alcohol and according to the summary of facts intending to kill him. He effected a home invasion in terms of attacking the complainant in his own home inflicting serious injuries to the complainants stomach which required eight (8) stitches and to his arms and mouth which required four (4) stitches.
9. As stated the maximum for this offence is life imprisonment. Prosecution have sought a 10 year start point and in the circumstances I accept that is an appropriate start point. That reflects the seriousness of your actions as well as the use of a lethal weapon. The only real deduction of substance that can be made is in relation to your guilty plea. Which was entered on the day this matter was to go to trial. That guilty plea however has saved some time for the court and has also saved the victims having to relive their experiences in court. For that guilty plea I will deduct a period of 2 years from your start point for sentence.
10. On the charge of attempted murder you will be convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. But your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.
11. The second charge of causing your wife grievous bodily harm in relation to that I note this was a serious assault on your then partner. From whom you recently separated. The documents before me indicate that her injuries needed eight (8) stitches and the fact that there has been no reconciliation or apology as is usual in cases of this nature indicates a lack of remorse for your offending. The only deduction therefore that can be made from any prison term is for your guilty plea.
12. Again I accept the prosecution submission that a 6 year start point for sentence is appropriate. From that I will deduct one (1) year to reflect your guilty plea. That leaves a term of 5 years. On the grievous bodily harm charge Silia you will be convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
13. The question that I now must address is whether these terms are to be served cumulatively or currently. The prosecution are correct there are two different victims and the offending occurred on two different days. However it is clear that the offences were the result of the same cause, namely your jealousy of the complainant and her new partner causing you to harm her and to harm her new partner. I also take into consideration the principle of totality of sentence where sentences should not be cumulative if they in total do not reflect the justice of a case. Making these two terms cumulative would in my view infringe that principle and would not properly reflect the criminality of the matter.
14. The sentences of 8 years and 5 years will therefore be ordered to be served concurrently with remand in custody time to be deducted. So for these assaults Silia the total you will serve in prison is 8 years less your remand in custody time. Faafetai ua maea lau mataupu.

JUSTICE NELSON