IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Mika [2014] WSSC 200

Case name: 	Police v Mika	
		
Citation: 	[2014] WSSC 200	
		
Decision date: 	24 November 2014	
		
Parties: 	POLICE (Prosecution)
LEROY MIKA male of Vaigaga and Tanumapua. (Defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	-	
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	On the charge of attempted murder you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison.  
On the charge of grievous bodily harm convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison concurrent term.  

On the charge of actual bodily harm that is a duplicate to the grievous bodily harm that charge is dismissed.  

On the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon namely a sapelu convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison also concurrent term.  

The net effect of all these sentences is you will serve 6 years in prison.	
		
Representation: 	L Sio and L Tavita for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented	
		
Catchwords: 	attempted murder – grievous bodily harm – actual bodily harm – armed with a dangerous weapon.	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Police v Mamaia [2013] WSSC 27	
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:
		
POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

	LEROY MIKA male of Vaigaga and Tanumapua.
Defendant

Counsel:	L Sio and L Tavita for prosecution
Defendant unrepresented

Sentence:	24 November 2014

SENTENCE
1.	The defendant has pleaded guilty to charges of attempted murder, grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and armed with a dangerous weapon. The police summary of facts which he has accepted says he is a 22 year old married man of Vaigaga and Aleisa, works for his uncles engineering shop at Vaigaga.  The victim is a 16 year old male also of Vaigaga and Aleisa single and stays at home helping out on the family plantation at Aleisa. 
2.	This incident occurred at the uncles plantation on Tuesday, 02 September 2014.  Both the defendant and victim were working at the plantation that day.  During the noon lunch time break the defendant approached the victim and asked him why he was spreading rumours about his wife and family.  The victim told him he did not say anything about his family or spread any such rumours.  The two of them continued to ‘tau upu’ and eventually ended up in a fist fight.  Members of the family jumped in and pulled them apart.  
3.	As the victim walked away the defendant picked up a machete that was lying on the fola of a nearby fale.  Someone warned the victim and the victim turned around and saw the defendant approaching him with the machete.  The defendant delivered a strike directed at the victims head area.  The victim put up his left hand to ward off the blow resulting in the machete cutting the victims left hand.   The victim then tackled the defendant and two men fell to the ground. While they were struggling on the ground the defendant delivered a second strike.  This landed on the lower back of the victim.  Family members jumped in and separated the two and took the victim to the hospital for treatment.  
4.	When these facts were initially read to the defendant he disputed striking the victim a second time while on the ground.  As a result the court had to hear evidence on the matter and in a ruling delivered last Wednesday, 19 November I found there was proven a second strike by the defendant in accordance with evidence adduced by the police.  Which showed that this second strike caused a long deep injury to the lower back of the victim.  Both injuries to the victims left hand and to his back were very serious and were inflicted because the defendant was trying to kill the victim because he was angry at him.  That is why the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and the other charges against him.  
5.	The maximum penalty for attempted murder is life in prison.  There are also substantial maximum penalties for the other offences the defendant has pleaded guilty to.  There is no question the seriousness of the offending and the use of a weapon to inflict serious injuries on an unarmed teenage boy 6 years younger than the defendant means an imprisonment penalty is appropriate and necessary.  To hold the defendant accountable and to express societys non tolerance of such behaviour.  And as a general and personal deterrence.
6.	As the court stated in the previous case of Police v Mamaia [2013] WSSC 27.  “Our people too readily resort to the use of weapons when they are angry.  The courts penalties must soundly condemn such behaviour and be aimed at deterring this kind of action.” The start point in that case which was a case also of machete on an unarmed victim was 8 years in prison.  
7.	Considering all the circumstances Leroy of your case an 8 year start point is appropriate.  But there are certain deductions which you are eligible for which I will now make.  Firstly for your guilty plea because it has saved a full trial.  Normally defendants are given a one-quarter deduction for a guilty plea.  But I cannot give you full credit because you did dispute some facts necessitating a hearing last week.  And at the end of the day the court found there was no basis for your objection.  I will therefore only deduct 1½ years from the 8 years start point leaves a balance of 6½ years.  You have a previous conviction therefore you cannot get credit for a clean record or for previous good character.  But the complainant did tell me at the hearing last week that your matter has been resolved and settled.  I therefore deduct 6 months from the balance of your sentence leave 6 years in prison.  There are no other deductions Leroy that I can make for your sentence.  
8.	On the charge of attempted murder you are convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison.  
9.	On the charge of grievous bodily harm convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison concurrent term.  
10.	On the charge of actual bodily harm that is a duplicate to the grievous bodily harm that charge is dismissed.  
11.	On the charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon namely a sapelu convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison also concurrent term.  
12.	The net effect of all these sentences is you will serve 6 years in prison.

JUSTICE NELSON