SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Sililo [2015] WSSC 112

Case name: 	Police v Sililo	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 112	
		
Decision date: 	5 October 2015	
		
Parties: 	POLICE v TEVAGA TAFA FUNEFEAI SILILO male of Leauvaa and Vaimoso.

Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 	S3793/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Chief Justice Sapolu	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	-	Convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $300 payable within 7 days in default 3 months imprisonment. 

Representation: 	L Sua- Mailo for prosecution
M V Peteru for accused

Catchwords: 	causing actual bodily harm with intent to cause actual bodily harm – maximum penalty – belated guilty plea – aggravating features relating to the offending – mitigating features relating to the offending – mitigating features relating to the accused as offender – previous good character prior to the commission of this offence	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Crimes Act 2013, s.119 (1) 	
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

FILE NO: S3793/15

BETWEEN

P  O  L  I  C  E

Prosecution

A  N  D

TEVAGA TAFA FUNEFEAI SILILO male of Leauvaa and Vaimoso.

Accused

Counsel:		L Sua- Mailo for prosecution
M V Peteru for accused

Sentence:	05 October 2015
S  E N  T  E  N  C  E
The charge
1. 	The accused Tevaga Tafa Sililo who is a 39 year old male appears for sentence on one charge of causing actual bodily harm with intent to cause actual bodily harm, contrary to s.119 (1) of the Crimes Act 2013, which carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.  To the charge he initially pleaded not guilty but on the morning of the trial he vacated his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty.
The offending
2. 	The accused and the victim who is a 52 year old female and their respective families were opposing parties in a case to be heard before the Land and Titles Court.  When they attended the hearing of their case on Tuesday morning 14 October 2014, the hearing was adjourned.  When they came out of the Court, the ‘tapuaiga’ of their village of Levi, Saleimoa, had already gathered in front of the Courthouse.  One of the victim’s brothers in law then made a speech thanking the village for their tapuaiga.  At that time, the accused called out to the victim’s brother in law that another matai of the family should be addressing the tapuaiga of the village and not him.  The victim’s 72 year old sister called out to the accused to shut up his mouth as he has no right to interject because he is not from Levi, Saleimoa (‘e le o oe ose Levi’).  This made the accused angry and walk towards the victim’s sister who was also walking to him. At that time, the victim saw the accused raise his hand as if to punch her sister and she intervened and pushed the accused away.  The accused reacted and punched the victim on the mouth.  As a result, two of the victim’s teeth were broken and she was bleeding from her mouth.  People who were present intervened and stopped the commotion.  The victim was later taken to the hospital the same morning where her two broken teeth were removed.
The victim 
3. 	As a result of this incident, the victim lost not only two teeth but felt much pain on the lower left side of her mouth where the bleeding was coming from.  She is now having some difficulties with chewing food as two of her teeth have been removed.  She and her family are also still angry with the accused because of what he did to her.
The accused
4. 	The accused is single and lives with his mother and his sister’s children.  He left school at Year 12 and took up bible studies at the Assembly of God Bible College in American Samoa.  When he returned to Samoa in 1998, he started his own church called the New Assembly of God.  He returned to American Samoa in 2000 and taught at the Assembly of God Bible College.  He later returned to Samoa and since 2013 he has been teaching at the New Assembly of God.
5. 	The accused is a first offender and the testimonial given by his mother to the probation service shows that he is a peacemaker.  The testimonial from the pastor of the New Assembly of God Church at Vailele shows the accused as a person of good character prior to the commission of this offence.
The aggravating features relating to the offending 
6. 	The aggravating features relating to this offending are: (a) the injuries to the victim which included the loss of two teeth and bleeding from the mouth, (b) the psychological impact of the offending, on the victim, (c) the place of the offending which was in front of the Courthouse in the presence of many people, and (d) the age difference of 13 years between the accused and the victim as a female which suggests that the accused is physically much stronger than the victim.
The mitigating features relating to the offending
7. 	The only mitigating feature relating to the offending is provocation.  The accused was under some degree of provocation when he called out to the victim’s brother in law who was making a speech to the tapuaiga of the village of Levi, Saleimoa, that another matai should be addressing the village but the victim’s sister called out to the accused to shut up his mouth as he is not from Levi, Saleimoa (‘e le o oe ose Levi’) and at the same time walking towards the accused.
The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender
8. 	The mitigating features relating to the accused as offender are (a) previous good character prior to the commission of this offence and (b) the accused’s belated guilty plea.  
Discussion 
9. 	In its sentencing memorandum, the prosecution is not seeking any specific penalty but leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.  On the other hand the defence is seeking a monetary penalty.  There was no premeditation.  The offending was unexpected and occurred on the spur of the moment.  It should not have happened if the accused and the victim’s sister had exercised self restraint. 
I have also considered the aggravating and mitigating features already set out.  In all the circumstances, I have decided to impose the following sentence.
Result 
10. 	The accused is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $300 payable within 7 days in default 3 months imprisonment. 

CHIEF JUSTICE