SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Leaoaniu [2013] WSSC 108

Case name: Police v Leaoaniu
Citation: [2013] WSSC 108
Decision date: 23 September 2013
Parties: 
POLICE v SIONA AMOSA LEAAI LEAOANIU, male of Toamua.
Hearing date(s): 
File number(s): 
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Place of delivery: Mulinuu
Judge(s): Justice Nelson 
On appeal from:
Order:
Representation: 
L Taimalelagi for prosecution
F K Ainuu 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:

SIONA AMOSA LEAAI LEAOANIU, male of Toamua.
Defendant

Counsel:   L Taimalelagi for prosecution
F K Ainuu for defendant 

Sentence:   23 September 2013

SENTENCE
The defendant appears for sentence on two counts of causing grievous bodily harm.  The charges have been brought under the previous crimes legislation so the offence carries a maximum penalty of 7 years.  The police summary of facts which counsel for the defendant has admitted says that he is a 37 year old male of Toamua married with three children.  He is well spoken of by the people who know him and relevant references have been attached to his probation report.  
The first victim is his brother-in-law Vaigafa Vaigafa a 40 year old male of Afega.  The second victim is Afato Fealofani a 41 year old male also of Afega said to be the defacto spouse of the defendants first wife.  The summary says that on the 16 of January 2010 at about 7:00 pm in the evening the victims and their spouses were at a shop in Afega buying food.  They were parked in front of the shop.  The defendant was also there in his vehicle.  
The defendant walked over to the victims vehicle stood at the drivers side and said something to the people inside.  At this time unknown to any one the defendant had a black waist bag which contained a small hand gun. The defendant walked back to where he was and the first victim Vaigafa got out of the vehicle and followed him.  The second victim Afato stayed in the vehicle.  
Vaigafa questioned the defendant as to what he had said.  A scuffle broke out between the defendant and Vaigafa.  Afato looked over and saw this and went over to break up the fight.  The summary says that the second victim was fighting on the ground but that cannot be correct it must be a reference to the first victim.   
The police summary also says in the next paragraph that when Afato approached he heard a “band” and realized Vaigafa had been shot in the leg.  Well because bands do not go around shooting people that must be a “bang”.  It then says that Afato tried to wrestle the weapon away from the defendant and was shot in the left shoulder.  
The same evening the two victims were admitted to the hospital.  The first victim was found to be suffering two small wounds on his left shoulder.  The second victim was found to have suffered a wound to his right leg.  The defendant was apprehended by the police and taken to the station and interviewed.  
This case has been outstanding for three years because in July 2010 the defendant did not appear for his court case and a warrant was issued for his arrest.  He was only arrested in June of this year and has been remanded in custody since then.  On the 26 of August this year he pleaded guilty to the two charges.  
The use of firearms in this country to commit offences is becoming far too common.  The court in previous cases has imposed deterrent sentences in an effort to deter people from resorting to the use of such lethal weapons.  Such sentences have issued in the past and will continue to issue.  The message to the public must be unambiguous and not be misunderstood.  If you use a gun on another person you can expect little leniency from the court.  
Grievous bodily harm carries a maximum of 7 years. There is no evidence that the defendants attack was provoked. The summary of facts says it was the defendant who initiated contact with the victims.  The summary has been accepted by the defendant through his lawyer.  The result of the attack is two victims with gunshot wounds inflicted by a small pistol which is an unlawful weapon in this country.  The defendant pulled this weapon and used it on unarmed victims.  It is fortunate for him and the victims that his shots did not hit any critical areas.  
Considering all circumstances of your matter a five year period of imprisonment is an appropriate start point.  You are entitled to a discount for your guilty plea I will reduce that therefore by one year to take into account your guilty plea.  Leaves a balance of 4 years.  You have good references attached to the probation office report.  Your background Siona is also a good one of service to your aiga and your ekalesia, your alalafaga or your nuu and you have a clean record with the police.  I will for all those factors deduct a further one year from your sentence.  Leaves a balance of 3 years.  There are no other factors which require a discount for mitigation.  On each of these charges you will be convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.  But as there are two different victims involved in this matter Siona those sentences must be cumulative.  It means a total term of 6 years in prison for the two matters.  
Your counsel has argued the time you spent in custody should be deducted from that term.  But there can be no deduction for the time you were remanded in custody following your arrest.  Because your remand in custody was necessary as you had not appeared for your court case.  The court can therefore only allow a deduction from the time that you pleaded guilty to these charges.  It is therefore ordered that period of time of about one month be deducted from your imprisonment term.  
The pistol involved in this case is ordered to be forfeited and destroyed.  

.……………………
JUSTICE NELSON