IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Informant

AND:

RAY ULUGIA male
of Vaiusu uta and Siusega
Defendant

Counsel: R.Titi for prosecution
A Roma for defendant	

Decision: 01 December 2010	

SENTENCE

This is a case of attempted rape involving a 27 year single male defendant and a 23 year old female of a neighbouring village. A suppression order if one has not already been made will issue in respect of prohibiting publication of the details of the complainant. 

The summary of facts which the defendant has accepted through his counsel states that at about 7.00pm on the day in question the defendant approach the victim while she was waiting for her mother in a car in her garage getting ready to leave for a fellowship meeting. The defendant told the Probation office in the course of his interview for his pre-sentence report that he had been drinking earlier this day and was on his way home when he saw the complainant standing beside the vehicle and he became aroused and wanted to have sex with her. 

The summary of fact goes on to relay that the defendant approached the vehicle, dropped his lavalava and grabbed the victim. He pinned her to the car seat and touched her private part as she struggled to break free from his actions. The constant screaming by the victim alerted her mother who ran out to the garage causing the defendant to flee from their property without his ie lavalava. Not surprisingly a naked man running down the road attracted some attention and the defendant was recognized by some boys and eventually identified to the police. 

I am sure the defendant has heard from the previous sentencing the courts comments in relation to the law and sentencing policies for attempted rape. These apply equally to his case as well, and his lawyer has correctly conceded that a custodial sentence would be required, the real issue is for how long. 

Considering all relevant circumstances an appropriate start point for this matter is also 5 years. But there are no aggravating factors in respect of this defendant or this offending that require this to be scaled upwards and therefore it is only a task of applying those deductions the defendant is entitled to. For his guilty plea he does not qualify for a full discount as this was only given on trial day but I accept it is indicative of his remorse and has saved the necessity of the complainant testifying and a full trial. I allow 6 months for that, for his first offender status and previous good record I allow a further 12 months. For the apology made to the complainant and her family as confirmed personally to the court by the complainants father I deduct a further period of 6 months. I accept counsel argument that the offending was not pre-meditated and was offending of opportunity by an intoxicated defendant who just happened to be walking along the road past the complainants house. Alcohol obviously played a large part in the defendants offending, however as counsel for the defendant has rightly pointed out in law that is not an excuse or mitigating factor. 

There are no further adjustments that need to be made to the defendants sentence in this matter. After deducting the 2 years for the allowable deductions that leaves a balance of 3years from the initial 5 years start point, for this matter therefore the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. The defendants remand in custody time is to be deducted from that 3 years.

................................................ 
 JUSTICE NELSON