THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Police v Lilo [2015] WSSC 122

Case name: 	Police v Lilo	
		
Citation: 	[2015] WSSC 122	
		
Decision date: 	13 April 2015	
		
Parties: 	Police (prosecution) and Peaoalii Siaki Lilo, male of Safa’ato’a and Matafa’a (defendant)	
		
Hearing date(s): 		
		
File number(s): 		
		
Jurisdiction: 	CRIMINAL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Aitken	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	10 months’ imprisonment	
		
Representation: 	L Su’a-Mailo and O Tagaloa for the Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Catchwords: 	assault – blow to the head – unprovoked assault –	
		
Words and phrases:	causing bodily harm with intent to cause harm – starting point of imprisonment – no relevant prior offending	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Police v Valufitu Uolio
Police v Lafaele Nansen 

Summary of decision:		

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

P  O  L  I  C  E
Prosecution

AND:

PEOALII SIAKI LILO
male of Safa’atoa and Matafa’a
Defendant

Counsel:	
L Su’a-Mailo and O Tagaloa for the Prosecution
Defendant appears in Person

Sentence:	13 April 2015
oral sentence of justice e m aitken
1.	Mr Lilo, you appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to one charge of causing bodily harm with intent to cause harm.  The victim is your 29 year old nephew and on 10 January, he had been rude and insulting at a saofai, and you had given him a beating because of that.  
2.	However, about nine days later, on 19 January, he was in front of your house; he was on his way to sell some goods (some meat-pies and some buns) and you approached him with the handle of an axe.  He says he tried to apologise again to you but you continued to walk towards him until your wife intervened and tried to break things up.  You pushed your wife away and then you hit the victim with the handle of the axe.  You either tried to hit him again or on the same occasion, he moved so that the axe actually hit him in the eye and caused it to bleed.  Your wife and another relative then took you away and the victim was taken to the hospital.  
3.	He had a cut that was 3cm wide and an inch deep and he needed nine stitches.  
4.	That is the summary of facts and I am going to sentence you on the basis of those facts, although you claim that there was a further conversation with the victim before you hit him with the axe handle.  
5.	As a starting point for this offending, Mr Lilo, the starting point must be one of imprisonment and that is because of the following aggravating factors: the first thing that makes this offending worse is the fact that it involved a blow to the head; and given the potential for very serious damage to result from blows to the head, the Court takes that factor seriously.  
6.	Secondly, it involved the use of a weapon, here, the axe handle.  
7.	Thirdly, I regard it as an unprovoked response.  You had already given your nephew a beating for his behaviour, and on this occasion he had done nothing more than he had done already – so an unprovoked assault.  
8.	I do not regard it though as particularly premeditated.  Clearly, you had been thinking about his behaviour over the intervening period but on this occasion, it seems he appeared unannounced and you responded rather swiftly by picking up the axe handle and assaulting him.  
9.	However, it was a reasonably serious injury: a large cut that required stitches.  It has had an impact on your nephew; it has left him with a permanent scar and he has been scared of you; certainly, at the time he prepared his Victim Impact Statement, and particularly because you had not apologised for your behaviour.  
10.	Now I have been referred to other decisions of this Court involving similar behaviour and in particular, one called Police v Valufitu Uolio.  This is where the defendant got angry with the victim and then they separated but then the defendant decided to retaliate and took a steel bar and hit the victim over the back of his head.  Similar behaviour, the Court adopted a starting point there of 5 years imprisonment.  I can say I regard the facts in that particular case as rather more serious than in this particular case in terms of the injury and the weapon and the defendant’s overall behaviours.  The Police v Lafaele Nansen is another similar case where there was an assault with a weapon and an end point sentence of nine months, so a starting point, I would have thought, of between 18 months and two years.  
11.	In this case, I fix the starting point at 18 months imprisonment.  You have previous convictions back in 1992 but they are so long ago they do not make the situation any worse for you.  In terms of mitigation, I do regard you, in the intervening period, as someone of good character.  You came back from 
New Zealand in 2012 after Cyclone Evan to help care for your parents and you continue to care for your elderly mother.  You are described very well in the reference from your Pastor and other people to whom the Probation Officer has spoken; they talk about you as being courteous, responsible and reliable – so you are a good son, a good husband and father; you are courteous, hardworking and reliable but you behaved in an appalling way on this occasion.  I will tend to regard the behaviour, however, as out of character – in other words, not something you are inclined to do.
12.	For those reasons, I will reduce the sentence by 3 months down to one of 15 months imprisonment.  
13.	Unfortunately, you have not chosen to apologise in good time and had that happened then the sentence may have been significantly further reduced.  But you did plead guilty at your first appearance and the Court regards that as something that should attract a significant further reduction; the maximum here in Samoa is one-third and that reduces the sentence down to one of 
10 months imprisonment – and that is the sentence that must be imposed, 
Mr Lilo, in respect of what was a serious, unprovoked assault against the victim.  So in respect of this charge the conviction is entered and you are sentenced now to a term of 10 months imprisonment.
14.	Because you have no [relevant] prior offending and because, to all other intents and purposes you are a hardworking and responsible man, there will be no term of supervision that follows that sentence.
Thank you, you may stand down.

	_____________________
								JUSTICE E M AITKEN