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

Police v Pelo [2014] WSSC 124 (24 March 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Pelo [2014] WSSC 124

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

POSALA PELO, male of Lotofagā and Sataoa Safata.
Defendant

Counsel: G Nelson for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 24 March 2014

SENTENCE

1. The police summary of facts refers to three charges against the defendant. The first is said to be a charge of causing serious injury. I have no difficulty with that charge and will take that to refer to information S930/14 which is a charge that at Lotofagā Safata on 24 January this year the defendant with intent to cause grievous bodily harm did cause grievous bodily harm to the complainant a male of Lotofagā Safata.
2. The second charge referred to is a charge of causing injury with intent. If that is a reference to charge on file namely information S927/14 that is a duplication of the first charge and it should be dismissed. That is an information that alleges that with intent to cause grievous bodily harm the defendant did wound the complainant and purports to be a charge brought under the same section as the first information. I dismiss it because it is either a duplication of the first charge or it encapsulates what is already alleged and pleaded guilty to in the first charge by the defendant.
3. The third charge referred to in the police summary of facts is armed with a dangerous weapon. There is no such charge on file. Which refers to only two original charges which I have already dealt with. The net result of all these is Posala only faces one charge namely with intent causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant. A charge that is punishable by a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
4. The police summary which the defendant has admitted says that he is a 31 year old male of Lotofagā and Sataoa single no children and works the family plantation to care for his aiga. He is a talented boxer according to his pre-sentence report. Which also refers to a job with his uncle in his uncle’s construction business. The complainant is a married man with three children and knows the defendant well.
5. This matter arose out of a drinking session involving the defendant and the complainant. The drinking session occurred at one of the shops in the village. The drinking session involved the complainant, the defendant, the defendants brother and other men of the village. At some stage the defendant and his brother got into an argument over bottles of alcohol. The police summary says this led to the defendant hitting his brother in the side of the face with a bottle. That is not the subject of this charge.
6. The brother left the drinking session because the defendant gets like this and becomes unpleasant when he is drunk. The police summary says the brother then walked to the front of the store and talked to the complainant and another man where the complainant was buying groceries for his family. The next thing that happened is somebody yelled out watch out the defendant is coming with a machete. The brother and the other man moved quickly but before the complainant could move away the defendant struck him in the head with the sapelu. The complainant fell to the ground unconscious and the defendant fled the scene.
7. The defendants brother and other men of the village alerted the police and they transported the complainant to Poutasi Hospital. Because the complainants injuries were serious he was transferred from Poutasi to Moto’otua. The medical report indicates that he had a laceration on the left front side area of his head. The wound was bleeding heavily and it required fifteen stitches. Also says the complainant was held in hospital for about a week recovering from his injuries. The defendant was subsequently apprehended by the police and interviewed and admitted in a cautioned statement to striking the victims head with a machete. Those are the essential facts of this matter.
8. It is clearly a serious assault because it involves the use of a sapelu. A sapelu which was not at the drinking session which means the defendant went and fetched it from somewhere before coming back and striking the complainant. His strike was not to some other part of the body it was to the head. It caused a serious injury. The victim impact report indicates that he will carry a permanent scar from this injury.
9. It is clear that the defendant was intoxicated. Probably the complainant was intoxicated and drunk as well. But that is no excuse for what the defendant did. When someone uses a sapelu to strike another person in the head causing a serious injury there can only be one sentence. And that is a sentence of imprisonment. The message to the defendant must be clear do not do this sort of thing again. The message to the public must be do not do this sort of thing at all. This is especially so if a defendant has a previous conviction for an offence of violence which the defendant admitted to the court this morning.
10. The maximum penalty as I have said is 10 years in prison. To strike someone in the head with a sapelu is an extremely serious example of this kind of offending. An appropriate start point for sentence is at least 5 years in prison. That must be upgraded to 6 years because of your previous conviction for an offence of violence. From that start point you are entitled to certain deductions Posala which I will now make on your behalf. The first one is for your guilty plea which has saved the courts time and indicates that you are remorseful for what you did and accept responsibility. For that I deduct one-quarter of your sentence a period of 18 months leaves a balance of 54 months.
11. The next deduction you are entitled to is your background which is a good background of service to your family and village. All of which is referred to in the pre-sentence report of the probation office. You also have a clean police record this is your first court appearance. For those matters I deduct 6 months leaves a balance of 48 months.
12. There has been reconciliation as confirmed by the probation office. Your friend has also petitioned for leniency for you and says that he has forgiven you for what you did. For that I deduct a further 6 months from your penalty leaves a balance of 42 months.
13. Probation report also refers to the penalty imposed by the Lotofagā village council as confirmed by the pulenuu Lau Tu’ua. For that penalty I deduct a further 6 months leaves a balance of 36 months. There are no other deductions Posala that can be made for your matter.
14. In respect of this offence you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison. O lea e te nofo taofia i lalo o le va’ava’aiga a leoleo i le taimi nei? (Defendant said yes). O taimi uma lea sa e nofo taofia ai mo le mataupu lenei ua poloaiga e le fa’amasinoga e aveese mai le 3 tausaga o lou fa’asalaga i le mataupu lenei.
    

JUSTICE NELSON