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

Police v Fale [2014] WSSC 166 (25 August 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Fale [2014] WSSC 166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

GASOLO FALE, male
Defendant

Counsel: O Tagaloa for prosecution
L R Schuster for defendant

Sentence: 25 August 2014

SENTENCE

1. The defendant appears for sentence on three charges involving three different victims. Because of the age of the victims there will issue a suppression order prohibiting publication of the details relating to these young people. The first lot of offending which is two charges of sexual connection with a person under 16 involves a 14 year old male of the defendants village. The second lot of charges against the defendant is a charge of indecent act against a 15 year old female of his village. The third and final lot of charges against the defendant involves a 17 year old male of his village. The summary of facts says that the defendant is a 52 year old male unemployed stays at home and works his plantation.
2. On 7^th September 2013 the first victim was sent by his father to the defendants house to get some ‘lau luau’. The victim arrived at the house, knocked on the door and no one responded. The boy walked around to the back of the house and the defendant suddenly opened the back door. The defendant was naked. The defendant grabbed the victims hand and pull him inside the house and told the victim to suck his penis. The victim complied until the defendant achieved climax.
3. The summary says the defendant then instructed the victim to take off his shorts but the victim refused. The defendant reached for the victims shorts and pulled them down. He then proceeded to suck the victims penis. While this carried on the defendant asked the victim why he had a huge private part. And whether the victim had sex with a female before. The defendant also asked the victim to have anal sex but the victim refused. Those are the details of the first charge of sexual connection with this young boy.
4. The second charge of sexual connection also involves the same young boy. Happened between 01^st of January and 11^th September 2013. On that day the victim was on his way to attend their youth working camp. The defendant intercepted him and invited him to rest under a cocoa tree. He also asked the same questions of the victim as to the size of his private part and whether he has had sex with a girl yet. The defendant then took off his lavalava and instructed the victim to suck his penis. He told the victim that if he did not do so he would use the machete on him, a machete that he had stuck to the cocoa tree. The victim did what he was instructed to do and in return the defendant also sucked the victims penis. Those are the details of the second information of sexual connection against the defendant.
5. In relation to the third of the charges this involves a different victim this time a 15 year old female of the village. The summary of facts states that on a day in June 2013 in the morning this young lady went to the defendants house to give him a phone charger. When she arrived the defendant was still asleep. She called out to him and he woke up. The defendant came over to her and she told him about the charger and could he please give it to her brother who was at a camp the defendant was going to attend. The victim then turned to leave the house when the defendant called her from inside his bedroom. The young girl turned around to look and saw that the defendant had removed his ie lavalava and was standing naked exposing his private parts to her. This caused the victim to walk away even though the defendant was still continuing to call her to come to him.
6. The fourth and final charge against the defendant states that on the 3^rd of September again at the defendants village this victim a different boy 17 years of age. On that date the victim was working at their plantation with his father. The defendant walked past and said to the victim “ta o i uta i lo’u maumaga e te matamata i la’u pi”. Despite the defendants efforts the victim refused to do this and chased the defendant away threatening to tell his father about what the defendant had said.
7. Those are the facts relating to the four charges against the defendant involving three different victims. It seems to me the defendant is a disturbed individual. The documents before me indicate that he has somewhat of a reputation for doing this sort of thing to young people of their village.
8. The word for a person like that is “paedophile” that is an adult who is sexually attracted to children and teenagers. Such people are dangerous individuals in any society. Because studies show that they are probably victims of sexual abuse themselves and that the pattern of offending of such offenders is one of escalation. It starts out with small offending and slowly grows to more serious offending against children. People of this nature in my view belong on a sex register so that everyone knows what they are capable of. So that everyone knows the sort of person living next door to their children.
9. I am astounded that in this case there are character references filed by the defendants Bishop of his ward saying that he is a good person and a person of good moral character. Such praising comments are also filed in a character reference from the pulenuu of the village. I have no hesitation in disregarding those references.
10. It is clear young children need protection from this sort of perverse behaviour. In this case the defendant did the same thing to the same victim at least twice, the 14 year old boy who was then attending primary school. His victim impact report details the profound effect the offending has had on him. It talks about how he was distracted from his studies by what the defendant was doing to him and that when the matter was reported to the police he was afraid of encountering the defendant. Of how he was being teased by his friends that they would say to him “o Gasolo lou toalua.” It became a scource of shame and embarrassment to him. And also says that he was concern about hearing that the village matais have said that if Gasolo is found to be innocent they will punish him and his family. That is a poor attitude by leaders of a village and those matai should now be aware what this defendant has pleaded guilty to doing.
11. Imprisonment is clearly required as a personal deterrence to the defendant so that he knows the consequences of what he did in the hope that may not do it again when he is out. And as a general deterrence to others and to hold the defendant accountable for his actions in relation to these young people.
12. In respect of a start point for sentence a 4 year start point is clearly appropriate. The defendant is entitled to a one-quarter deduction for his guilty plea that is a period of 12 months leaves a balance of 36 months. In acknowledgement of the fact that the defendant is a first offender and his pre-sentence report is a good report, I will make a further deduction of 3 months from that balance leaves 33 months.
13. In respect of the counts of sexual connection with the 14 year old boy the defendant on each charge will be convicted and sentenced to 33 months in prison, terms to run concurrent.
14. In relation to the indecent act on the 15 year old female allowing for mitigating factors convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison.
15. In respect of the final charge of insulting words on the 17 year old boy convicted and sentenced to 1 month in prison. Applying the principle of totality of sentencing it is ordered that the 6 months and 1 month be served concurrent to the defendants other sentence. Remand in custody time to be deducted.

JUSTICE NELSON