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

Police v Pio [2010] WSSC 136 (5 July 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

SEMU PIO, male of Faleasiu.

Counsels: Mr G. Patu for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence: 5 July 2010

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case is a 32 year old male of Sapulu Faleasiu, married with two children, the defendant is a planter and tausi aiga. The complainant is his 42 year old brother-in-law being the brother of his wife and at the time of the incident the defendant was living in the wife's family at Sapulu, Faleasiu. According to what the wife told the Probation Office the defendant rendered good tautua to the family. However there was friction between the defendant and the complainant something which continues to this day as evidenced by the complainants appearances in this matter and his oral advise to the court reminding me when this case was last called that this matter has not been settled between him and his brother-in-law.

The charge facing the defendant has now been reduced by the prosecution to causing grievous bodily harm to the complainant and discharging of a firearm without reasonable cause. There is also reference in the summary of facts to possession of an unlawful firearm but there is no such charge in the court file and he is therefore going to be sentenced today only on the two charges of grievous bodily harm and discharging a firearm.

The summary of facts which the defendant has accepted talks of an argument between the defendants wife and the complainant. What is in the probation report instead refers to an argument between the defendant and the intoxicated complainant as being the root cause of this incident. Whatever the real situation is, what is clear is the defendant was angered by the events of that evening, he went to his own family's house at Sapulu Faleasiu, retrieved his gun and he returned and shot the complainant in the leg. He says that he did not at any time intend to kill the complainant but only wound him as a sort of warning. This fairly drastic warning resulted in the complainant needing surgery at the hospital to remove the bullet fragment from his leg and the victim impact report talks about a two week recuperation period and how the complainant even to this day continues to suffer from his injury.

The circumstances I have heard indicate that the matter has not been settled in accordance with our custom and tradition and fa'a-samoa between the defendant and the complainant and indicates the relationship between the complainant and his sister has also been soured by these events. The sister seems to have taken the defendants side which is not surprising because she is his wife.

No doubt you have heard from the previous sentencing this afternoon how serious offending using firearms is treated by the courts. That is because such offending is becoming increasingly prevalent in our community and the court must try and stamp it out and it is also because such offending usually leads to serious injury such as in the present case. Imprisonment terms are therefore normally imposed and there is no reason to treat your case any differently.

The maximum penalty for grievous bodily harm is 7 years in prison but considering all the facts of your case a lesser term should be considered by the court. I use for your case a start sentence of 5 years. I deduct one-third of that for your guilty plea which is an expression of your regret and remorse and also means the court has been saved the time and expense of a trial. That leaves a balance of 40 months of your sentence. From that I have made a deduction of 12 months for the fact that you are a first offender and for other factors in your favour and also having regard to all the other particular circumstances of your case. That leaves a balance of 28 months, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 4 months in prison in respect of this offending. In respect of the other charge of discharging a firearm you are convicted and discharged without penalty.

JUSTICE NELSON