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

Police v Paulo (Sentence) [2002] WSSC 1 (13 February 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Informant

AND:

LAFAELE PAULO,
male of Tafitoala and Leauvaa
Defendant

Counsel: Mr D. Potoi for the Prosecution
Mr A. Roma for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 24 January 2002
Date of Sentencing: 13 February 2002

SENTENCING REMARKS OF VAAI J.

Defendant, you now appear for sentence on this very serious charge of indecent assault to which you are liable to 7 years imprisonment. After a defended hearing on the 24^th of January this year, I announced my verdict of guilty as charged and reserved my reasons. Those reasons are now available.

You were at the time of the offence a Catholic catechist at the village of Mulifanua. The victim in this case is a 12 year old young girl of your congregation. On the 1^st of October last year this young victim and her younger brother came to your church to practise prayers of confession. You called in the younger brother first into your room and when he came out you called the victim. When the victim walked into the room you locked the door and you called her to come to where you were. She did not come to where you were so you went over and pulled her towards you. You then undid her shirt and started sucking on her breasts. She tried to resist you but you kept on sucking her breasts. You then continued to kiss her lips and suck on her tongue. At this time her younger brother and another young girl were knocking on the door. The door was finally opened and you let out the girl.

Indecent assault is a very serious offence as it carries a maximum sentence of 7 years; it is even worse serious when committed on a young girl of 12 years of age, and it is inexcusable when the offence is committed by a 52 year old Catholic catechist.

You went and apologised to the mother of the victim but she refused to accept your apology. She told you that you came to the village of Mulifanua as a shepherd to look after the sheep but you have instead used the little lambs.

I totally agree with her. It is incredibly difficult to comprehend why a mature man and a catechist like you would commit such an offence. You told the Probation Service during the interview by a probation officer that you have problems with the opposite sex. I am not totally sure what that means. But it does appear to the court that without first addressing that problem you were prepared to accept pastoral work and you allowed parents of your congregation to put their young girls under your trust.

Your counsel has told the court that this offence has resulted in a shame to you, your family, your village and the church. With regards to the church, if they have been put to shame, they ought to be because you committed indecent assault in 1992 when you were a catechist and you were dealt with by the court then but it still decided to keep you as a catechist. Had it not been for the courage of this young victim to stand up to your lust and indecency this offence would have gone un-noticed and your deviant behaviour would probably have spread to other young girls of the congregation.

Before I impose sentence I will have to consider the mitigating factors in your favour. I take into account all the matters raised in the probation report. I agree with your counsel that you have brought disgrace upon yourself and especially your grown up children. You have also been exposed to public disgrace through the media and I take that as a form of penalty that you have imposed upon yourself. I also take into account that this is a relatively minor instance of indecent assault compared to the other indecent assaults which normally come before this court.

Against you, I take into account that you entered a not guilty plea and a hearing had to be called for, which means that the victim had to give evidence and to re-lived the events of the day. You have also abused the trust that was placed in you by the parents of the victim. By your action this young girl has been denied the right to live a normal life. It is difficult to determine at this stage the impact of your offending as she progresses to adult life. You also have a previous conviction of the same offence in 1992 while you were still a Catholic catechist. Now the purpose of the sentence that I intend to impose on you this morning is to impress upon you and under like-minded persons like you that society condemns such undesirable conduct and should not be tolerated. Young girls like the victim in this case is entitled to the protection of the law and society expects this court to pass sentence to reflect that the right of the child is intact.

The sentence therefore should reflect the seriousness of the offence and to act as deterrence. You are sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

JUSTICE VAAI