SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Metu [2013] WSSC 103

Case name: Police v Metu
Citation: [2013] WSSC 103
Decision date: 26 August 2013
Parties: 
POLICE v RICKY SEUPULE METU, male of Vaega Satupaitea.
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Justice Nelson
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
L Taimalelagi and O Tagaloa for prosecution
L Tamati for defendant 
Catchwords: 
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
Summary of decision:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

THE POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

RICKY SEUPULE METU, male of Vaega Satupaitea.
Defendant

Counsel:   L Taimalelagi and O Tagaloa for prosecution
L Tamati for defendant 

Sentence:   26 August 2013

SENTENCE
The defendant appears for sentence on three charges.  First that at Satupaitea on 08 November 2011 he did indecently assault the complainant, a female under 12 years of age.  Second at the same place same date he did verbally make a threat to do bodily harm to the complainants brother by saying “vaai o lea o le a ou alu atu ma le sapelu”.  A suppression order will continue to extend in respect of the details of the complainant and her brother.  The complainant at the time of the offending was 7½ years of age and her brother was 10 years old.  
At the defendants trial and in accordance with the courts ruling dated 26 July 2013 in this matter the court found as follows; that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant took the complainant to a secluded area of his plantation where he indecently assaulted the complainant.  He did this by undressing her, pinching her neck and lower body around the area of her private parts.  He also showed her his private part.  The second charge against the defendant stems from his use of his sapelu to threaten the young girls brother preventing him from interfering with what the defendant was doing to the complainant.  
The young age of the victim plus the use of a sapelu makes this case particularly serious.  The grossness of his acts and the effect they would have had on this young 7½ year old are also factors to be taken into consideration.  
The maximum penalty by law for the offence of indecent assault of a girl under 12 years of age is 7 years in prison.  The courts have often spoken of the need to protect young children from such acts by older males especially by those who know them.  And use that knowledge and relationship for their own self gratifying purposes.  One wonders how far the defendant would have gone if the girls brother at the prompting of the passing villager Veni had not called out looking for her.  
A deterrent sentence of imprisonment is required to be imposed to deter the defendant from doing this again and to deter other males and send a message to them as to what will happen if they behave like this in respect of a young girl.  It is also required as a mark of societys disapproval of such behaviour and to denounce the defendants actions.  
A start point for sentence of 4 years is in my view warranted for your case.  Defendants would normally get a deduction for their guilty plea but in this case you elected to defend the charge.  Indeed the defendant continues to protest his innocence to the probation office as noted in their report.  So there is therefore no deduction for any remorse because you have expressed none.  
What you are entitled to as noted by your counsel is a deduction for your background of service to your family to the community and to your Ekalesia.  That is a background that is fully referred to in the probation office report and include references from your faifeau and others.  For those matters I will deduct one year from the start point of sentence leaving a balance of 3 years.  Probation office also confirmed you have been the subject of a village penalty.  For that I will make a deduction of 6 months from the balance.  Probation office also confirmed the ifoga by your family to the victims family accepted by them and they through the victims father have sought the courts leniency on you.  For those matters I will deduct a further 6 months.  That leaves a balance of 2 years on your sentence.  I note that at the time of this offending you were around 19 years of age.  In recognition of your young age and your probable immaturity I will deduct a further 6 months from that balance.  Leaves a balance of 18 months.  There are no other matters for which you are entitled to deductions.  
On the charge of indecent assault Ricky you will be convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison but your remand in custody time awaiting sentence is to be deducted from that period.  
On the second charge of threat to do bodily harm, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison.  That term is to run concurrent to your other term of imprisonment.  Makes your imprisonment a total of 18 months.  

.……………………
JUSTICE NELSON