IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

MAFUTAGA PAEPAE FU’A
a male of Samusu-uta and Sinamoga

VALIANO SEIULI SIO
a male of Samusu-uta and Tufulele
Defendants

Presiding Judge:	Justice Vaai

Counsel: Mr Petaia and Ms Chang for prosecution
Mr Schuster for first defendant
Mr S Leung Wai for second defendant 

Ruling Date:	16th June 2008

RULING OF JUSTICE VAAI

Defendants on the 9th June of this year, the panel of assessors found you guilty of murder. That verdict followed the defended hearing on the charge that on the 25th August 2007 at Samusu-uta by an unlawful act of assault you caused the death of Makiasi Pulou of Samusu-uta. Following that verdict I gave leave to counsels to make submissions whether I should concur with that verdict or not. 

It is not disputed that on the night of the 25th August 2007, the victim was assaulted at Samusu-uta village; the assault was witnessed by two young boys who were standing close by. Just before the assault the two boys saw the two accuseds running towards the victim and assaulted the victim after the victim’s car has stopped and the victim got out. The victim fell to the ground and the two accuseds continued to assault the victim. The noise of the assault was heard by an elderly lady Akenese who lived close by; she went to the scene of the assault and she called out; she saw two men running away from the scene and the two young boys told Akenese that the two men who ran away were the two accuseds. The testimonies of the two young boys were supported by the evidence of Akenese as well as the evidence of one of the accused Mafutaga Paepae. Although the evidence of the two young boys may have been exaggerated as to how the assault was executed when they told the court that broken glasses were used to assault the face of the victim; they nonetheless confirmed medical evidence that all blows were aimed at the face of the victim. It is also not disputed that the victim died at the scene of the accident immediately after the assault. 

That being the evidence the assessors naturally had no difficulty in concluding that the accuseds aided each other in assaulting the victim and secondly the victim died as a result of the assault. The only issue for the assessors to take time to consider was the one of intent. And from the evidence there was nothing in the evidence which suggested that both defendants had murderous intent when they went to look for the victim to assault. So the issue of intent that the assessors had to consider was whether the two accuseds meant to cause to the deceased bodily injury known to the accuseds to be likely to cause death and the two accuseds were reckless whether death ensued or not. The assessors were obviously satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the two accuseds meant to caused bodily injury known to the accuseds to be likely to cause death and were reckless whether death ensued or not. And there was evidence for the assessors to have reached that verdict because there was evidence that while the victim was lying helplessly on the ground the two accuseds continued to deliver blows to his face. And it should have been foreseen by the two accuseds that delivering several blows to the face of any human being was likely to cause death and they were reckless whether death ensued or not but they continued to deliver blows to the face of the victim. They only stopped when the woman Akenese came to the scene. I therefore come to the conclusion that I must concur with the verdict of the assessors. And there is only one penalty imposed by law and that is life imprisonment and both accuseds are sentenced to life imprisonment. 

JUSTICE VAAI