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

Police v Siope [2011] WSSC 12 (14 February 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Informant

AND:

MAKANA SIOPE

male of Poutasi Falealili and Sinamoga.
Defendant

Counsels: Ms P Valoia for prosecution
Ms T Leavai for defendant

Sentence: 14 February 2011

SENTENCE

The defendant in this case appears for sentence on a charge of having sexual intercourse with a female between the age of 12 and 16 years of age who was not his wife. Under the law of this country that is a criminal offence punishable by 7 years in jail. Those laws are made by the Parliament of this country and the duty of this court is to enforce them. This is not a new law this has been the law of the land for a long time. Many cases of carnal knowledge involving young males and young females have come before the court, this is not the first and sadly probably will not be the last. As this court has stated on many previous occasions the law is there to protect young girls from older men and to protect young girls from themselves because they are too young to know better.

The summary of facts in this case shows that the defendant is a 19 year old male currently attending the Institute of Technology at the National University at Le Papaigalagala campus. The victim at the time of the offending was his neighbours 12 year old daughter. In case there has not an order there will be an order suppressing publication of the details of the female victim in this matter, that would extend also to the defendant because of his relationship as next door neighbour and that includes the place and village of this offending.

The prosecution summary of facts states that on the evening of Sunday 6 June 2010 the defendant met up with the victim under a coconut tree in front of the defendants house. After talking for some time the defendant and victim then started kissing. Later that same night this led to sexual intercourse between the parties. The summary goes on to state that this was repeated at a subsequent date but I note that only one count of carnal knowledge has been pleaded guilty to by the defendant. The summary goes on to state that at no time did the defendant ask the victim for her age but given that the defendant is the neighbour of the victim and that the complainant was only 12 years of age it must have been apparent to this 19 year old defendant that the girl was clearly underage.

As I have stated the law is there to protect young girls from older men and this girl was at the youngest age of the spectrum of ages prescribed by the offence, she was 12 years old and the defendant was 7 years her senior. There is no question that the intercourse was done on a consensual basis but for the purposes of this offence consent is irrelevant. I have given due consideration to the very able submissions made by your lawyer Makana both verbally and in writing. And had it not been for the very young age of the girl and considerable age difference between the two of you there may have been room for a different penalty to be applied to your case. But the fact that the complainant was only 12 years of age is a significant aggravating factor that this court should not overlook.

The court is also not immune to the petitions that have been placed before it this afternoon from the complainants mother as well as from the defendants grandmother. I understand and sympathise completely with the petitions that you have placed before the court. But we are not here by your choice or by my choice we are here because of what the defendant did. And what he did was to break the law. But I do pay great weight to the petitions that have been placed before the court.

I take no pleasure in sending young men to prison Makana. But this court has a greater duty to the community and the message that must be continually reinforced in respect of this sort of offence is that men should leave underage girls alone. The consequences of sex with underage females are dire and it is really not worth it. I make these comments without even touching upon the cultural significance of this sort of offending.

After giving due consideration to all factors in this case I am of the clear view that an imprisonment penalty must be imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offending and in particular the aggravating factors involved. But I will take into consideration as I have stated the factors in your favour and imposed what I consider to be the minimum term that can be imposed.

The defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison and it is ordered that he serve that time at the Olomanu Juvenile Facility at Mulifanua.

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